Guest guest Posted January 15, 1998 Report Share Posted January 15, 1998 Kanak, Will you please let me know which planets you use for RPs including associated and aspected planets. Also how you use the nodes. Thanks Ron Gaunt >On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:56:22 -0800, you wrote: Dear punit ji, In my opinion RP works very good allways.i have so many examples. i remember Lajmiji worte about RP (about his peon) in birthtime rectification RP is most helpfull. you cnat do Birthtime Rectification without RP regards kanak bosmia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 1998 Report Share Posted January 16, 1998 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? Your comment on Mars aspect to Saturn suggests that aspects of a RP also creates other RPs. Is this correct? If so what aspects do you use - Western by Degree, or Hindu by Sign? You note in the example that Rahu is agent of Ketu. Is this because Rahu is in Ketu Star? 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? 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? 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? 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? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 1998 Report Share Posted January 17, 1998 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 <kanbosastro wrote: > >Dear Ron ji, > >My coments in Bold Red Letter..... > >Regards > >kanak bosmia > > >>rongaunt <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 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. Thanks Ron Gaunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Ron ji, In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planets influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It is the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets. Thanks & Regards, Punit Pandey On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt wrote: > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. > > Thanks > > Ron Gaunt > > ________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Dear all, Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may have been affected. Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share it with us. Thanks. With regards. Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Punit Pandey [punitp] Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Ruling Planets Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Dear All, I'm wondering whether RPs are so realted to the number chosen that may again depend on luck and strong will of querist and astrloger. If so, mathematization of RPss may not work as mentioned by Punit Pandey. Best regards, tw , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> wrote: > Dear all, > > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of > the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the > calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite > possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may > have been affected. > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share > it with us. > > Thanks. With regards. > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > _____ > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM > > Re: Ruling Planets > > > Ron ji, > > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all > the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planets > influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It is > the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets. > > Thanks & Regards, > > Punit Pandey > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> > wrote: > > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different > > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling > > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs > > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna > > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu > > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the > > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. > > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from > > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. > > > > Thanks > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > ________________________________ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 Tw ji, Normally the RPs are taken for the time and not for the number. Number based RP can be used for shortlisting purpose only. Yes, in my opinion too, strong will is one of the important factor. Thanks & Regards, Punit Pandey On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:32:05 -0000, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > Dear All, > > I'm wondering whether RPs are so realted to the number chosen that > may again depend on luck and strong will of querist and astrloger. If > so, mathematization of RPss may not work as mentioned by Punit > Pandey. > > Best regards, > > tw > > > > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the > validity of > > the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then > the > > calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is > quite > > possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week > day may > > have been affected. > > > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, > please share > > it with us. > > > > Thanks. With regards. > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM > > > > Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > Ron ji, > > > > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all > > the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the > planets > > influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It > is > > the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Punit Pandey > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> > > wrote: > > > > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different > > > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling > > > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs > > > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna > > > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu > > > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the > > > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. > > > > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from > > > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear punit ji, In my opinion RP works very good allways.i have so many examples. i remember Lajmiji worte about RP (about his peon) in birthtime rectification RP is most helpfull. you cnat do Birthtime Rectification without RP regards kanak bosmia >Punit Pandey <punitp > > >Re: Re: Ruling Planets >Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:15:07 +0530 > >Tw ji, > >Normally the RPs are taken for the time and not for the number. Number >based RP can be used for shortlisting purpose only. > >Yes, in my opinion too, strong will is one of the important factor. > >Thanks & Regards, > >Punit Pandey > > >On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:32:05 -0000, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > I'm wondering whether RPs are so realted to the number chosen that > > may again depend on luck and strong will of querist and astrloger. If > > so, mathematization of RPss may not work as mentioned by Punit > > Pandey. > > > > Best regards, > > > > tw > > > > > > > > > > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...> > > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the > > validity of > > > the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then > > the > > > calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is > > quite > > > possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week > > day may > > > have been affected. > > > > > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, > > please share > > > it with us. > > > > > > Thanks. With regards. > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > > > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM > > > > > > Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > > Ron ji, > > > > > > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all > > > the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the > > planets > > > influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It > > is > > > the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > > > Punit Pandey > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different > > > > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling > > > > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs > > > > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna > > > > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu > > > > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the > > > > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. > > > > > > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from > > > > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Prof KSK has clearly defined the Ruling Planets. Let us not tamper with this defination, unless we have adequate data to PROVE that they do not work, and then only try to find out another substitute for it. For example, a Lot of research has gone in chnaging the Rule regarding Retro-grade Planets. It is now modified to state that A RETRO_PLANET will be negative, only when it is in the Star of another Retro Planet, otherwise the result will be delayed only. Punit Pandey <punitp wrote: Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 The Vedic Defination hold Good. The only mistake one makes is that while the Calender(gregorian) day starts at Midnight, the Vedic Day starts at Sunrise, and so it will vary with the place . We tend to ignore this fact. as it becomes a bit lenghty to calculae the Sunrise at the place and then decide the Correct DAY LORD. GOOD LUCKVaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear all, Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may have been affected. Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share it with us. Thanks. With regards. Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Punit Pandey [punitp] Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Ruling Planets Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear Mr.Raichur, I agree with you entirely...Allow me to also add,that it is my experience,like so many KP followers also,that the retrograde planet delivers result/s after passing over the point where it began retrogression,in direct motion... I understand the anxiety and eagerness of members to change rules,"in a tearing hurry" without careful,detailed and years of observations,like those, already made by many K.P. Stalwarts,in the past...but I counsel them patience and more detailed observation,and verify this by events like the electricity "going off" and then "coming on again"...and similar events,and satisfy themselves...I feel that the lack of easy availability of past issues,where these things have been extensively debated in issue after issue,os Astrology & Adrishta as the Magazine was known earlier...is the main reason for these "aberations(?)"... With highest regards, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! anant raichur <anant_1608 wrote: Prof KSK has clearly defined the Ruling Planets. Let us not tamper with this defination, unless we have adequate data to PROVE that they do not work, and then only try to find out another substitute for it. For example, a Lot of research has gone in chnaging the Rule regarding Retro-grade Planets. It is now modified to state that A RETRO_PLANET will be negative, only when it is in the Star of another Retro Planet, otherwise the result will be delayed only. Punit Pandey <punitp wrote: Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear Punit, There seems to be a lot of "lack-of-clarity" on the subject of RPs... K.P. has defined and explained RPs very simply...and their application is also simple...also those of "retrograde" RPs... I recommend all K.P. students to re-read KSK on RPs,and Retrograde Planets... Application of Horary in short events involving Mercury esp., as the sublord of the XIth,OR,experimenting with real-time problems,like "when will my child(ren) return from school ?",or ..."when will my wife return home from the market ?" etc., will help hone one's skills, at correctly using RPs...and which RPs do not yield results etc., Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK !Kanakkumar Bosmia <kanbosastro wrote: Dear punit ji, In my opinion RP works very good allways.i have so many examples. i remember Lajmiji worte about RP (about his peon) in birthtime rectification RP is most helpfull. you cnat do Birthtime Rectification without RP regards kanak bosmia >Punit Pandey <punitp > > >Re: Re: Ruling Planets >Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:15:07 +0530 > >Tw ji, > >Normally the RPs are taken for the time and not for the number. Number >based RP can be used for shortlisting purpose only. > >Yes, in my opinion too, strong will is one of the important factor. > >Thanks & Regards, > >Punit Pandey > > >On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:32:05 -0000, tw853 <tw853 wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > I'm wondering whether RPs are so realted to the number chosen that > > may again depend on luck and strong will of querist and astrloger. If > > so, mathematization of RPss may not work as mentioned by Punit > > Pandey. > > > > Best regards, > > > > tw > > > > > > > > > > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...> > > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > > > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the > > validity of > > > the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then > > the > > > calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is > > quite > > > possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week > > day may > > > have been affected. > > > > > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, > > please share > > > it with us. > > > > > > Thanks. With regards. > > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > > Australia > > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > > > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM > > > > > > Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > > > > Ron ji, > > > > > > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all > > > the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the > > planets > > > influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It > > is > > > the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > > > Punit Pandey > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different > > > > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling > > > > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs > > > > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna > > > > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu > > > > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the > > > > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. > > > > > > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from > > > > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear tw, RPs,as you are already aware,rule, that moment of time,at which they are computed... The "mind" of the consultant is clearly refleclted by the Moon... A lot of research on the query of a consultant,and whether it is promised or not,has been done by the Gulbarga Team of K.P. Astrologers,and is now famously known as " The Gulbarga Method " ... I am,however, not aware,so far, of any specific research having been made in prognosticating the mind of the astrologer... Yours sincerely, lyrastro1tw853 <tw853 wrote: Dear All, I'm wondering whether RPs are so realted to the number chosen that may again depend on luck and strong will of querist and astrloger. If so, mathematization of RPss may not work as mentioned by Punit Pandey. Best regards,tw , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" <vvidya@o...> wrote:> Dear all,> > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of> the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the> calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite> possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may> have been affected. > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share> it with us.> > Thanks. With regards.> > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > _____ > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM> > Re: Ruling Planets> > > Ron ji,> > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all> the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planets> influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It is> the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.> > Thanks & Regards,> > Punit Pandey> > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt@b...>> wrote:> > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > > > Thanks> > > > Ron Gaunt> > > > ________________________________> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear Vaidun, I suspect that in any science,to prove a point,some assumptions are a necessity,like-wise,I guess the days and their lords are an arbitrary assumption,but found to be useful over a period of time,perhaps...that,to my mind alone explains these phenomena...Isn't it so ? According to Hindu Philosophy, the entire world and everything else in it is only Maya...! Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear all, Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may have been affected. Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share it with us. Thanks. With regards. Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Punit Pandey [punitp] Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Ruling Planets Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear ron ji, PLACE : AHMEDABAD GUJARAT :: INDIADATE 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 RETROPLANET DO NOT COUNT IN RP.IN OUR EXAMPLE RP ARE NOT IN STAR OR SUB of RETRO PLANT) regards kanak bosmia >rongaunt <rongaunt > > >Re: Re: Ruling Planets >Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:27:14 +1000 > > >Kanak, > >Will you please let me know which planets you use for RPs >including associated and aspected planets. Also how you use >the nodes. > >Thanks > > >Ron Gaunt > > > > >On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:56:22 -0800, you wrote: > >Dear punit ji, > >In my opinion RP works very good allways.i have so many examples. >i remember Lajmiji worte about RP (about his peon) > >in birthtime rectification RP is most helpfull. you cnat do >Birthtime Rectification without RP > >regards > >kanak bosmia > Find files on your PC instantly with the new MSN Toolbar Suite beta – FREE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear Yogesh Rao Lajmi, Punit Pandey Many thanks for your explanation regarding my simple thing without a required study. Of course, any set rules cannot be changed without a solid proof and it may not be fair to say that there are mistakes in KP Readers without taking a burden of proof. Thanks and best regards, tw , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > Dear tw, > RPs,as you are already aware,rule, that moment of time,at which they are computed... > The " mind " of the consultant is clearly refleclted by the Moon... > A lot of research on the query of a consultant,and whether it is promised or not,has been done by the Gulbarga Team of K.P. Astrologers,and is now famously known as " The Gulbarga Method " ... > I am,however, not aware,so far, of any specific research having been made in prognosticating the mind of the astrologer... > Yours sincerely, > lyrastro1 > > tw853 <tw853> wrote: > > Dear All, > > I'm wondering whether RPs are so realted to the number chosen that > may again depend on luck and strong will of querist and astrloger. If > so, mathematization of RPss may not work as mentioned by Punit > Pandey. > > Best regards, > > tw > > > > > , " Vaidun Vidyadhar " <vvidya@o...> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the > validity of > > the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then > the > > calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is > quite > > possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week > day may > > have been affected. > > > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, > please share > > it with us. > > > > Thanks. With regards. > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: <vvidya@o...> vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM > > > > Re: Ruling Planets > > > > > > Ron ji, > > > > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all > > the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the > planets > > influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It > is > > the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Punit Pandey > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> > > wrote: > > > > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different > > > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling > > > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs > > > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna > > > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu > > > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the > > > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. > > > > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from > > > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Dear Mr Rao, May I be permitted to add my views on the subject please. This is my understanding. Vedic astrology, as the name suggests, has its roots in the vedas. Traditional belief supports the view that the vedas were given by Lord Brahmah himself at the time of creation. Allocation of the week days to the seven planets could not have been an arbitrary assumption just to prove a point, as much as allocation of the number of years to each planet in the Vimshottdari Dasa System could not have been an arbitrary assumption. There is more to it than appears on the surface. It will take a Maharishi, a Seer, a God-Realised-Master, to intuitively discern the rationale behind the allocation of the weekdays to each planet. There is a mathematical perfection in the universe. Mere mortals like you and I can only wonder in awe. Vedic astrology is a small peep hole provided by Brahmah himself for us to see some of the inner mechanism of what drives the universe. But in the final analysis, as you have rightly said, it is all Maya. Just my humble two cents worth. Sincerely Vidyadhar Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Yogesh Rao Lajmi [lyrastro1] Saturday, 15 January 2005 6:43 PM Subject: RE: Ruling Planets Dear Vaidun, I suspect that in any science,to prove a point,some assumptions are a necessity,like-wise,I guess the days and their lords are an arbitrary assumption,but found to be useful over a period of time,perhaps...that,to my mind alone explains these phenomena...Isn't it so ? According to Hindu Philosophy, the entire world and everything else in it is only Maya...! Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear all, Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may have been affected. Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share it with us. Thanks. With regards. Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Punit Pandey [punitp] Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Ruling Planets Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Dear Vaidun, Thanks...and I agree entirely,that we are mere mortals...and greater men and forces are,and were at work...! With best wishes, lyrastro1Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear Mr Rao, May I be permitted to add my views on the subject please. This is my understanding. Vedic astrology, as the name suggests, has its roots in the vedas. Traditional belief supports the view that the vedas were given by Lord Brahmah himself at the time of creation. Allocation of the week days to the seven planets could not have been an arbitrary assumption just to prove a point, as much as allocation of the number of years to each planet in the Vimshottdari Dasa System could not have been an arbitrary assumption. There is more to it than appears on the surface. It will take a Maharishi, a Seer, a God-Realised-Master, to intuitively discern the rationale behind the allocation of the weekdays to each planet. There is a mathematical perfection in the universe. Mere mortals like you and I can only wonder in awe. Vedic astrology is a small peep hole provided by Brahmah himself for us to see some of the inner mechanism of what drives the universe. But in the final analysis, as you have rightly said, it is all Maya. Just my humble two cents worth. Sincerely Vidyadhar Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Yogesh Rao Lajmi [lyrastro1] Saturday, 15 January 2005 6:43 PM Subject: RE: Ruling Planets Dear Vaidun, I suspect that in any science,to prove a point,some assumptions are a necessity,like-wise,I guess the days and their lords are an arbitrary assumption,but found to be useful over a period of time,perhaps...that,to my mind alone explains these phenomena...Isn't it so ? According to Hindu Philosophy, the entire world and everything else in it is only Maya...! Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear all, Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may have been affected. Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share it with us. Thanks. With regards. Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Punit Pandey [punitp] Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Ruling Planets Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 RE ASPECTS: In the KP readers KSK recommends the use of Western Aspects for greater accuracy. However, in the Relative priority of Signigicators, The Planets signfied by Aspect, is the lowest Signifiocator. Moreover, if one recalclates the Demostrated Examples in The Readers, one will find that where aspect is mentioned, it is more often than not, the Classical Hindoo Aspect, by signs, and not the Western by Degrees. Amonst the KP astologers to whom I have suypplied my SW, only ONE insisted that the significator should be by Westen Methods, by degrees. tw853 <tw853 wrote: Dear Yogesh Rao Lajmi, Punit Pandey Many thanks for your explanation regarding my simple thing without a required study.Of course, any set rules cannot be changed without a solid proof and it may not be fair to say that there are mistakes in KP Readers without taking a burden of proof. Thanks and best regards,tw , Yogesh Rao Lajmi wrote:> Dear tw,> RPs,as you are already aware,rule, that moment of time,at which they are computed...> The "mind" of the consultant is clearly refleclted by the Moon...> A lot of research on the query of a consultant,and whether it is promised or not,has been done by the Gulbarga Team of K.P. Astrologers,and is now famously known as " The Gulbarga Method " ...> I am,however, not aware,so far, of any specific research having been made in prognosticating the mind of the astrologer...> Yours sincerely,> lyrastro1> > tw853 wrote:> > Dear All,> > I'm wondering whether RPs are so realted to the number chosen that > may again depend on luck and strong will of querist and astrloger. If > so, mathematization of RPss may not work as mentioned by Punit > Pandey. > > Best regards,> > tw> > > > > , "Vaidun Vidyadhar" > wrote:> > Dear all,> > > > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the > validity of> > the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then > the> > calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is > quite> > possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week > day may> > have been affected. > > > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, > please share> > it with us.> > > > Thanks. With regards.> > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > > 1 / 94 Marius Street > > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > > Australia > > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > > Email: vvidya@o... > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM> > > > Re: Ruling Planets> > > > > > Ron ji,> > > > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all> > the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the > planets> > influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It > is> > the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.> > > > Thanks & Regards,> > > > Punit Pandey> > > > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt > > wrote:> > > > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> > > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> > > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> > > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> > > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> > > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> > > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > > > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> > > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > > > > > Thanks> > > > > > Ron Gaunt> > > > > > ________________________________> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 The Days Sunday,Monday,....Saturday are arranged in a way which is based on the distances of the planets from the earth. The details of this method are given in some Vedic Astrolgy Books. There iis also an explanation given why the Planets are in a Given Order and how the number of years allotted to their Dasa are fixed, The sad thing it is, we have accepted the teachings of our Gurus, without asking for the reasons/methodoly behind the ruls. I will try to find out, if possible the methods/explainations and post them. We have to Start with the Full Faith, that there is a reason/method behind all the Rules given by our Rishis, then try to find what this rule/method is . Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear Mr Rao, May I be permitted to add my views on the subject please. This is my understanding. Vedic astrology, as the name suggests, has its roots in the vedas. Traditional belief supports the view that the vedas were given by Lord Brahmah himself at the time of creation. Allocation of the week days to the seven planets could not have been an arbitrary assumption just to prove a point, as much as allocation of the number of years to each planet in the Vimshottdari Dasa System could not have been an arbitrary assumption. There is more to it than appears on the surface. It will take a Maharishi, a Seer, a God-Realised-Master, to intuitively discern the rationale behind the allocation of the weekdays to each planet. There is a mathematical perfection in the universe. Mere mortals like you and I can only wonder in awe. Vedic astrology is a small peep hole provided by Brahmah himself for us to see some of the inner mechanism of what drives the universe. But in the final analysis, as you have rightly said, it is all Maya. Just my humble two cents worth. Sincerely Vidyadhar Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Yogesh Rao Lajmi [lyrastro1] Saturday, 15 January 2005 6:43 PM Subject: RE: Ruling Planets Dear Vaidun, I suspect that in any science,to prove a point,some assumptions are a necessity,like-wise,I guess the days and their lords are an arbitrary assumption,but found to be useful over a period of time,perhaps...that,to my mind alone explains these phenomena...Isn't it so ? According to Hindu Philosophy, the entire world and everything else in it is only Maya...! Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya wrote: Dear all, Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may have been affected. Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share it with us. Thanks. With regards. Vaidun Vidyadhar 1 / 94 Marius Street Tamworth, NSW 2340 Australia Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) Mobile: 0414 870 083 Email: vvidya Punit Pandey [punitp] Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Ruling Planets Ron ji,In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work allthe time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planetsinfluencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It isthe actual Vedic theory of ruling planets.Thanks & Regards,Punit PandeyOn Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt wrote:> > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different> (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling> planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs> of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna> but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu> under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the> Moon, including a planet in the 1st House.> > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from> members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct.> > Thanks> > Ron Gaunt> > ________________________________> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Dear Ron ji, My coments in Bold Red Letter.....Regards kanak bosmia >rongaunt <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 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 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 <kanbosastro wrote: Dear Ron ji, My coments in Bold Red Letter.....Regards kanak bosmia >rongaunt <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! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 1. " In Quest of Origin of Parasari's Vimshottary Dasa -Period " Research Study by Dr. Pt. K.R. Kar, K.P & Astrology, 2004, pp 63-70 2. Worthy to note " For a thought : --- the periods assigned to different planets seem to be quite adhoc and no reasoning is available anywhere. This makes the dasha system very doubtful --- Yet, it is difficult to deny the system of dasha, often it seems to be giving results with undoubted accuracy. " in http://www.hinduastrology.org/learnastrology/dasha.asp , anant raichur <anant_1608> wrote: > The Days Sunday,Monday,....Saturday are arranged in a way which is based on the distances of the planets from the earth. The details of this method are given in some Vedic Astrolgy Books. There iis also an explanation given why the Planets are in a Given Order and how the number of years allotted to their Dasa are fixed, The sad thing it is, we have accepted the teachings of our Gurus, without asking for the reasons/methodoly behind the ruls. I will try to find out, if possible the methods/explainations and post them. We have to Start with the Full Faith, that there is a reason/method behind all the Rules given by our Rishis, then try to find what this rule/method is . > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote: > Dear Mr Rao, > > May I be permitted to add my views on the subject please. This is my understanding. > > Vedic astrology, as the name suggests, has its roots in the vedas. Traditional belief supports the view that the vedas were given by Lord Brahmah himself at the time of creation. Allocation of the week days to the seven planets could not have been an arbitrary assumption just to prove a point, as much as allocation of the number of years to each planet in the Vimshottdari Dasa System could not have been an arbitrary assumption. There is more to it than appears on the surface. It will take a Maharishi, a Seer, a God-Realised-Master, to intuitively discern the rationale behind the allocation of the weekdays to each planet. > > There is a mathematical perfection in the universe. Mere mortals like you and I can only wonder in awe. Vedic astrology is a small peep hole provided by Brahmah himself for us to see some of the inner mechanism of what drives the universe. But in the final analysis, as you have rightly said, it is all Maya. > > Just my humble two cents worth. > > Sincerely > > Vidyadhar > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: vvidya@o... > > > > > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi [lyrastro1] > Saturday, 15 January 2005 6:43 PM > > RE: Ruling Planets > > > > Dear Vaidun, > I suspect that in any science,to prove a point,some assumptions are a necessity,like-wise,I guess the days and their lords are an arbitrary assumption,but found to be useful over a period of time,perhaps...that,to my mind alone explains these phenomena...Isn't it so ? > According to Hindu Philosophy, the entire world and everything else in it is only Maya...! > Yours sincerely, > lyrastro1 > GOOD LUCK ! > > > > > Vaidun Vidyadhar <vvidya@o...> wrote: > Dear all, > > Reference Punit Pandey's email below. I have long suspected the validity of the day lord. In vedic times it must have held true but since then the calendar has been revised time and again. In the process it is quite possible the synchronisation of the week day to the original week day may have been affected. > > Does anyone have any authoritative information on this? If so, please share it with us. > > Thanks. With regards. > > Vaidun Vidyadhar > 1 / 94 Marius Street > Tamworth, NSW 2340 > Australia > Tel: 61-2-67 668428 (home) > Mobile: 0414 870 083 > Email: vvidya@o... > > > > > > > Punit Pandey [punitp@g...] > Saturday, 15 January 2005 7:33 AM > > Re: Ruling Planets > > > > Ron ji, > > In my opinion the mathematization of ruling planets doesn't work all > the time. Better we should redefine the ruling plants with the planets > influencing the moon and the ascendant other than the day lord. It is > the actual Vedic theory of ruling planets. > > Thanks & Regards, > > Punit Pandey > > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:24:13 +1000, rongaunt <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > > > I am somewhat bemused by the variations given by different > > (and even the same) authors as to what constitute the Ruling > > planets. Variations involve: including or not including the subs > > of the Lagna and Moon, sometimes including the sub of the Lagna > > but not the Moon, including or not including Rahu and or Ketu > > under certain conditions, including a planet conjoined with the > > Moon, including a planet in the 1st House. > > > > As I need to do some research on this I would appreciate from > > members, data where they know the time of birth to be correct. > > > > Thanks > > > > Ron Gaunt > > > > ________________________________ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 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...
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.