Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 KP books generally state something like: 'If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of 4,9, 11 ( or alternatively 4, 9 or 11) then ......... I would appreciate members opinions on whether it is sufficient for the cuspal sub lord to be in only one house, two houses or one of the first two plus the third. ie. in the above consideration would: 1. the sub lord only signifying the 4th house (or either of the two separately) qualify? 2. the sub lord of any two of the three houses be necessary to qualify? 3. the sub lord signifying one of the first two houses ie above 4 or 9 PLUS signifying the 11th house being necessary to qualify. I see many cases where only one appears necessary to qualify; but the way it is written is ambiguous and needs clarifying. Ron Gaunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Dear Ron, My understanding. Technically it should be sub lord signifying either 4 or 9 or 11,meaning any one of the three. I suppose only in some situations it may signify all three having same star lord. A sub lord may also signify other houses .Interconnection between three houses,is estabilished thro other planets. In a lighter vein, English not being ou mother tongue, we frame the composition,based on our familiarity with English language.You would have noticed the variations in expressions in the different KP books. Best Regards, Satish , " rongaunt@b... au " <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > KP books generally state something like: > 'If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of > 4,9, 11 ( or alternatively 4, 9 or 11) then ......... > > I would appreciate members opinions on whether it is sufficient > for the cuspal sub lord to be in only one house, two houses or > one of the first two plus the third. ie. in the above > consideration would: > > 1. the sub lord only signifying the 4th house (or either of > the two separately) qualify? > > 2. the sub lord of any two of the three houses be necessary > to qualify? > > 3. the sub lord signifying one of the first two houses ie above > 4 or 9 PLUS signifying the 11th house being necessary to > qualify. > > I see many cases where only one appears necessary to qualify; but > the way it is written is ambiguous and needs clarifying. > > > Ron Gaunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 Dear Ron, I suggest you interpret 4,9,11 as 4 and/or 9,and/or 11... you will not have any more problems Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK !"rongaunt au" <rongaunt wrote: KP books generally state something like:'If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of 4,9, 11 ( or alternatively 4, 9 or 11) then .........I would appreciate members opinions on whether it is sufficientfor the cuspal sub lord to be in only one house, two houses orone of the first two plus the third. ie. in the aboveconsideration would:1. the sub lord only signifying the 4th house (or either of the two separately) qualify?2. the sub lord of any two of the three houses be necessary to qualify?3. the sub lord signifying one of the first two houses ie above 4 or 9 PLUS signifying the 11th house being necessary to qualify.I see many cases where only one appears necessary to qualify; butthe way it is written is ambiguous and needs clarifying.Ron Gaunt How much free photo storage do you get? Store your friends n family photos for FREE with Photos. http://in.photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 Dear Ron, I have repeatedly clarified with those who taught me and checked many articles on this subject. In the context of the necessary CSL signification for a particular matter, it is disjunction, not conjunction. That is, in your example, it is: " If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of 4 or 9 or 11, then ... " . However, when the event takes place, I understand, all signifying houses will be active. Having said this, let me add that I am still not clear about some similar rules given by Shanmugham in Astrosecrets Part-1, for example on 5th House. In many cases, what he uses seems to be conjunction, not disjunction. What you have raised is one of the many cases that are defined vaguely. Although as Satish says in his posting #5065 that this is due to our non-English mother tongue, what is surprising is that there are so many vedic astrology books that are clearly written by Indian authors. KP seems to be the accursed one! There is a strong case for writing a good book on KP for world-wide audience. Regards, Rangarajan , " rongaunt@b... au " <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > KP books generally state something like: > 'If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of > 4,9, 11 ( or alternatively 4, 9 or 11) then ......... > > I would appreciate members opinions on whether it is sufficient > for the cuspal sub lord to be in only one house, two houses or > one of the first two plus the third. ie. in the above > consideration would: > > 1. the sub lord only signifying the 4th house (or either of > the two separately) qualify? > > 2. the sub lord of any two of the three houses be necessary > to qualify? > > 3. the sub lord signifying one of the first two houses ie above > 4 or 9 PLUS signifying the 11th house being necessary to > qualify. > > I see many cases where only one appears necessary to qualify; but > the way it is written is ambiguous and needs clarifying. > > > Ron Gaunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2005 Report Share Posted June 18, 2005 Dear Rangarajan, If I am not mistaken,the terms "applying" and "separating" conjunctions ,"rapt" conjunctions etc.,are generally being used...instead of conjunction and disjunction,in most K.P. books and articles,just like, applying and separating aspects ... The applying ones considred to be stronger... We seem to be now entering/opening up a new field...the field of "hair-splitting"...and competing with easch other to be one better than the other...at it ? The specific degrees have been given for such conjunctions to influence/give results...for each planet... but a conjunction within 3 degrees is considered very effective to produce/influence results...? In any case, I personally see no major development taking place,to improve prediction or timing techniques,as a result of such purely academic discussions...a consultant is looking for the correct prediction as to when an event will take place at all,and if so when,and whether it will be beneficial or not for him... As said earlier,the greatest distiction between K.P.,and other systems is the accuracy in timing of an event,whether it is favourable or not ...by taking help of the RPs...at TOJ...differentiates K.P., from other systems ...that the RPs at the TOJ will surely operate as RPs at the time of Fructification of the event...is the axiom...! With best wishes, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK !Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy <ranga wrote: Dear Ron,I have repeatedly clarified with those who taught me and checked manyarticles on this subject. In the context of the necessary CSLsignification for a particular matter, it is disjunction, notconjunction. That is, in your example, it is: "If the cuspal sublordof 4 be the significator of 4 or 9 or 11, then ...". However, when theevent takes place, I understand, all signifying houses will be active.Having said this, let me add that I am still not clear about somesimilar rules given by Shanmugham in Astrosecrets Part-1, for exampleon 5th House. In many cases, what he uses seems to be conjunction, notdisjunction.What you have raised is one of the many cases that are definedvaguely. Although as Satish says in his posting #5065 that this is dueto our non-English mother tongue, what is surprising is that there areso many vedic astrology books that are clearly written by Indianauthors. KP seems to be the accursed one! There is a strong case forwriting a good book on KP for world-wide audience.Regards,Rangarajan , "rongaunt@b... au" <rongaunt@b...>wrote:> > KP books generally state something like:> 'If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of > 4,9, 11 ( or alternatively 4, 9 or 11) then .........> > I would appreciate members opinions on whether it is sufficient> for the cuspal sub lord to be in only one house, two houses or> one of the first two plus the third. ie. in the above> consideration would:> > 1. the sub lord only signifying the 4th house (or either of > the two separately) qualify?> > 2. the sub lord of any two of the three houses be necessary> to qualify?> > 3. the sub lord signifying one of the first two houses ie above > 4 or 9 PLUS signifying the 11th house being necessary to> qualify.> > I see many cases where only one appears necessary to qualify; but> the way it is written is ambiguous and needs clarifying.> > > Ron Gaunt Free antispam, antivirus and 1GB to save all your messages Only in Mail: http://in.mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Dear Lajmi ji, Suppose I am looking for a horary chart for a question on Passing the examination by a High School student. [Not competative exam] Then, if sub lord of 4th cusp signfies 4th house, will the answer be yes? I was looking this question today at 11:51 AM, KP number 41 and coordinates 73:13E 22:18N. Inder , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote: > Dear Ron, > I suggest you interpret 4,9,11 as 4 and/or 9,and/or 11... you will not have any more problems. > Yours sincerely, > lyrastro1 > GOOD LUCK ! > > " rongaunt@b... au " <rongaunt@b...> wrote: > > KP books generally state something like: > 'If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of > 4,9, 11 ( or alternatively 4, 9 or 11) then ......... > > I would appreciate members opinions on whether it is sufficient > for the cuspal sub lord to be in only one house, two houses or > one of the first two plus the third. ie. in the above > consideration would: > > 1. the sub lord only signifying the 4th house (or either of > the two separately) qualify? > > 2. the sub lord of any two of the three houses be necessary > to qualify? > > 3. the sub lord signifying one of the first two houses ie above > 4 or 9 PLUS signifying the 11th house being necessary to > qualify. > > I see many cases where only one appears necessary to qualify; but > the way it is written is ambiguous and needs clarifying. > > > Ron Gaunt > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2005 Report Share Posted June 20, 2005 Dear Inder, High School,or class exam or University exams the houses IV,IX & XI ,and the s/l of the IVth is to be examined for ALL exams...for higher studies the s/l of the IXth is analysed whether it signifies IV & XI...is what I have been taught... With best wishes, Yours sincerely, lyrastro1 GOOD LUCK ! Inder <indervohra2001 wrote: Dear Lajmi ji,Suppose I am looking for a horary chart for a question on Passing the examination by a High School student. [Not competative exam]Then, if sub lord of 4th cusp signfies 4th house, will the answer be yes?I was looking this question today at 11:51 AM, KP number 41 and coordinates 73:13E 22:18N.Inder , Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1> wrote:> Dear Ron,> I suggest you interpret 4,9,11 as 4 and/or 9,and/or 11... you will not have any more problems.> Yours sincerely,> lyrastro1> GOOD LUCK !> > "rongaunt@b... au" <rongaunt@b...> wrote:> > KP books generally state something like:> 'If the cuspal sublord of 4 be the significator of > 4,9, 11 ( or alternatively 4, 9 or 11) then .........> > I would appreciate members opinions on whether it is sufficient> for the cuspal sub lord to be in only one house, two houses or> one of the first two plus the third. ie. in the above> consideration would:> > 1. the sub lord only signifying the 4th house (or either of > the two separately) qualify?> > 2. the sub lord of any two of the three houses be necessary> to qualify?> > 3. the sub lord signifying one of the first two houses ie above > 4 or 9 PLUS signifying the 11th house being necessary to> qualify.> > I see many cases where only one appears necessary to qualify; but> the way it is written is ambiguous and needs clarifying.> > > Ron Gaunt> > > > > > > > > > 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.