Guest guest Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Dear all, Pardon my intrusion here. I dont have more knowledge than the Masters of Lalkitab present here, but I wish to say that signs do matter in the lalkitab placement of planets, subject to treating the Birth Chart as a Natural Chart whatever ascendant it may be. Otherwise - Why would be ? 1) Saturn be considered a Malefic 3 times in the first house ? Is it not because the first House is the Exaltation sign of The Sun ? 2) Jupiter be considered as giving Malefic in the 10th ? Is it no because the 10th natural sign Capricorn is the debilitations sign of Jupiter ? 3) Mars considered as malefic in the 4th House ? Is it not because its the debilitation sign of Mars - Cancer ? 4) Sun is considered to be goodin the 5th House ? Is it not because Leo the natural sgn is The Suns own sign ? 5) Moon gives great wealth in the 2nd House ? Is it not because Taurus is the Exaltation sign of Moon in the natural Kala Purusha chart ? Therefore how can one say that the significance of the signs has been ignored by the author of Lal Kitab ? regards/Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 all learned members respected prbhakar ji, nirmal ji, dear jitin syal, hi I hv an Goswami ji book tht book says rahu in first house Raashi Phal ka so tht means not an Sign effect dont mix sign/Raashi of vedic astrology with Lal kitab Raashi phal.plz just read Armaan , farmaan And 1941 by yograj prbhakar before 1952.To understand Raashi phal and Grah phal. thanx learner of lal kitab jattin. --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj <nirbhar wrote: Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj <nirbharRe: Re: rahu 1st house Date: Monday, November 24, 2008, 4:14 PM Dear Jatin Ji, Though I have not the tralslation/ treatise of Goswami Ji Book. But in my opinion it is a translation error or it is also possible that treatise has been written with preset mind of traditional astrology Rashis(signs) in lalkitab are reffered as the Ghars of Planets not pakka ghar. Like Aries(mesh) is the ghar of Mars, Vrishabh is of venus Mithun is of Mercury.Rahu is always Ucha in ghars of Mercury and neccha in ghars of Brihaspati. Gemini and Kanya are ghars of Mercury that is why Rahu behave like uchha in these house. Planet 's effect in a house influenced by the interrelationship with other planets who are having any type influence in that house by virtue of its ghar, pakka ghar, uchha or neecha rashi. You are right. Nakshatras and Sighns are not used here as used in traditional astrology. Regards Nirmal On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM, jitinsyal82 <jitinsyal82@ .co. uk> wrote: pranam all gurujans,it's unfortunate and inconvenient not being able to read urdu hence relying on other sources, however i'll do my best to source my query/question.on page 46 of english edition LK(1952) by Pt. madhav goswami ji it says rahu in 1st house is of sign effect, now my concern/query was whether rahu behaves as per the sign posited in, as it is obvious in lal kitab that we don't consider sign(rashi) anywhere so why does the text states sign then?(mind you nothing against a learned individual like Pt. goswami ji)i was almost certain that Pt.joshi ji gave no weightage to nakshatras and rashis in lal kitab but wasn't sure, or i thought may be it's just me not being able to understand it properly and as it turns out later was the case.i thank you all for clearing my doubt, atleast now i know for sure that i only to need to concentrate on the houses rather than the signs which they occupy.yours respectfullyjitin syal , "kapatjal" <kapatjal wrote:>> dear Friends,> > As i understand,LK system does not give any importance to the signs > as given in tne prepared horoscopes by vedic pundits; in fact signs > from 1 to 12 are fixed in the 12 houses of the horoscope. This is > the basics of LK astrology. So there is no qustion of there being > Rahu or any other planet in any given sign for consideraiton of the > planet as par LK system.> > with best wishes;> sincerely,> kiranjit, bhupesh sharma > <bhupeshastro@> wrote:> >> > Dear Jitin Ji > > " Rahu in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in "> > As you mentioned about Rahu Khna No 1 in LK 1952 English Version , > It must be a serious mistake because there is no mention of sign > even in the LK1952 , LK Farman 1939 , and in the LK 1942 .> > > > Pandit Bhupesh Shharma> > > > --- On Sat, 11/22/08, Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar@> wrote:> > > > Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar@>> > Re: rahu 1st house> > > > Saturday, November 22, 2008, 1:48 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jitin> > > > You have written:> > // 'rahu in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in'//> > > > My dear friend, there is no mention of Sign (Rashi) in the chapter > Rahu khana number 1 in Lal kitab-1952. I think there is some serious > mistake in the book/chapter you have mentioned . > > > > Sincerely> > Yograj Prabhakar> > > > , "jitinsyal82" > <jitinsyal82@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > pranam all gurujans,> > > > > > i just thought we haven't discussed effect of any planet in a > house for > > > a long time now so might as well start with rahu in 1st.> > > > > > i read in english version LK 1952(by pt. madhav goswami ji) > that 'rahu > > > in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in'> > > does that mean we take the sign into consideration when deriving > > > results for rahu in this house? for eg. rahu in gemini would be > > > beneficial and so on........> > > > > > i also request everyone to kindly share their knowledge in > regards to > > > the above situation.> > > > > > thanks> > > yours respectfully> > > jitin syal> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 dear jatin kapila ji, i was almost certain that sign plays no importance in lal kitab but couldn't get over the fact that, why the word " sign " was being mentioned in lal kitab especially with rahu in 1st. i do however thank you for clearing my doubt and sharing your experienced thoughts with me. you certainly have helped me understand the concept better and in time like these i wonder, what would i do without a senior member like yourself. thank you for en-lighting us. also i am not as fortunate as you to have 1941 hindi version by shri yograj prabhakar ji(and meet him personally). i will deem it a great favour if you can somehow organise to send me a copy in adelaide (australia). i will pay for the expenses beared. thank you. yours respectfully jitin syal , Jattin Kapila <jattinkapila wrote: > > all learned members > respected prbhakar ji, nirmal ji, > dear jitin syal, > hi > I hv an Goswami ji book tht book says rahu in first house Raashi Phal ka > so tht means not an Sign effect dont mix sign/Raashi of vedic astrology with Lal kitab Raashi phal.plz just read Armaan , farmaan And 1941 by yograj prbhakar before 1952.To understand Raashi phal and Grah phal. > thanx > learner of lal kitab > jattin. > > > --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj <nirbhar wrote: > > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj <nirbhar > Re: Re: rahu 1st house > > Monday, November 24, 2008, 4:14 PM > Dear Jatin Ji, > Though I have not the tralslation/ treatise of Goswami Ji Book. But in my opinion it is a translation error or it is also possible that treatise has been written with preset mind of traditional astrology Rashis(signs) in lalkitab are reffered as the Ghars of Planets not pakka ghar. Like Aries(mesh) is the ghar of Mars, Vrishabh is of venus Mithun is of Mercury.Rahu is always Ucha in ghars of Mercury and neccha in ghars of Brihaspati. Gemini and Kanya are ghars of Mercury that is why Rahu behave like uchha in these house.. Planet 's effect in a house influenced by the interrelationship with other planets who are having any type influence in that house by virtue of its ghar, pakka ghar, uchha or neecha rashi. > > You are right. Nakshatras and Sighns are not used here as used in traditional astrology. > > Regards > Nirmal > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM, jitinsyal82 <jitinsyal82@ .co. uk> wrote: pranam all gurujans, > it's unfortunate and inconvenient not being able to read urdu hence > relying on other sources, however i'll do my best to source my > query/question. > on page 46 of english edition LK(1952) by Pt. madhav goswami ji it > says rahu in 1st house is of sign effect, now my concern/query was > whether rahu behaves as per the sign posited in, as it is obvious in > lal kitab that we don't consider sign(rashi) anywhere so why does the > text states sign then?(mind you nothing against a learned individual > like Pt. goswami ji) > > i was almost certain that Pt.joshi ji gave no weightage to nakshatras > and rashis in lal kitab but wasn't sure, or i thought may be it's > just me not being able to understand it properly and as it turns out > later was the case. > i thank you all for clearing my doubt, atleast now i know for sure > that i only to need to concentrate on the houses rather than the > signs which they occupy. > > yours respectfully > jitin syal > > > > , " kapatjal " <kapatjal@> wrote: > > > > dear Friends, > > > > As i understand,LK system does not give any importance to the > signs > > as given in tne prepared horoscopes by vedic pundits; in fact signs > > from 1 to 12 are fixed in the 12 houses of the horoscope. This is > > the basics of LK astrology. So there is no qustion of there being > > Rahu or any other planet in any given sign for consideraiton of the > > planet as par LK system. > > > > with best wishes; > > sincerely, > > kiranjit, bhupesh sharma > > <bhupeshastro@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Jitin Ji > > > " Rahu in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in " > > > As you mentioned about Rahu Khna No 1 in LK 1952 English > Version , > > It must be a serious mistake because there is no mention of sign > > even in the LK1952 , LK Farman 1939 , and in the LK 1942 . > > > > > > Pandit Bhupesh Shharma > > > > > > --- On Sat, 11/22/08, Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar@> wrote: > > > > > > Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar@> > > > Re: rahu 1st house > > > > > > Saturday, November 22, 2008, 1:48 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jitin > > > > > > You have written: > > > // 'rahu in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in'// > > > > > > My dear friend, there is no mention of Sign (Rashi) in the > chapter > > Rahu khana number 1 in Lal kitab-1952. I think there is some > serious > > mistake in the book/chapter you have mentioned . > > > > > > Sincerely > > > Yograj Prabhakar > > > > > > , " jitinsyal82 " > > <jitinsyal82@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > pranam all gurujans, > > > > > > > > i just thought we haven't discussed effect of any planet in a > > house for > > > > a long time now so might as well start with rahu in 1st. > > > > > > > > i read in english version LK 1952(by pt. madhav goswami ji) > > that 'rahu > > > > in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in' > > > > does that mean we take the sign into consideration when > deriving > > > > results for rahu in this house? for eg. rahu in gemini would be > > > > beneficial and so on........ > > > > > > > > i also request everyone to kindly share their knowledge in > > regards to > > > > the above situation. > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > yours respectfully > > > > jitin syal > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2008 Report Share Posted November 25, 2008 pranam jatin ji, sir first of all please accept my apologies if i didn't thank you enough in the last post but i am more than happy to do it here (again). sir i thank you whole heartedly for doing such a splendid work in rectifying me and giving me a better understanding(point taken on board). As far as the other books goes, trust me that would be the top thing on my 'to do' list when i visit india again, unless ofcourse a person like yourself can arrange a copy. sir thank you very much for taking your precious time out and going that extra yard in order to help a novice like me. yours sincerely jitin syal , " jitinsyal82 " <jitinsyal82 wrote: > > dear jatin kapila ji, > > i was almost certain that sign plays no importance in lal kitab but > couldn't get over the fact that, why the word " sign " was being > mentioned in lal kitab especially with rahu in 1st. > i do however thank you for clearing my doubt and sharing your > experienced thoughts with me. you certainly have helped me understand > the concept better and in time like these i wonder, what would i do > without a senior member like yourself. > > thank you for en-lighting us. > > also i am not as fortunate as you to have 1941 hindi version by shri > yograj prabhakar ji(and meet him personally). i will deem it a great > favour if you can somehow organise to send me a copy in adelaide > (australia). i will pay for the expenses beared. > > thank you. > > yours respectfully > jitin syal > > , Jattin Kapila > <jattinkapila@> wrote: > > > > all learned members > > respected prbhakar ji, nirmal ji, > > dear jitin syal, > > hi > > I hv an Goswami ji book tht book says rahu in first house Raashi > Phal ka > > so tht means not an Sign effect dont mix sign/Raashi of vedic > astrology with Lal kitab Raashi phal.plz just read Armaan , farmaan > And 1941 by yograj prbhakar before 1952.To understand Raashi phal and > Grah phal. > > thanx > > learner of lal kitab > > jattin. > > > > > > --- On Mon, 11/24/08, Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj <nirbhar@> wrote: > > > > Nirmal Kumar Bhardwaj <nirbhar@> > > Re: Re: rahu 1st house > > > > Monday, November 24, 2008, 4:14 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jatin Ji, > > Though I have not the tralslation/ treatise of Goswami Ji Book. But > in my opinion it is a translation error or it is also possible that > treatise has been written with preset mind of traditional astrology > Rashis(signs) in lalkitab are reffered as the Ghars of Planets not > pakka ghar. Like Aries(mesh) is the ghar of Mars, Vrishabh is of > venus Mithun is of Mercury.Rahu is always Ucha in ghars of Mercury > and neccha in ghars of Brihaspati. Gemini and Kanya are ghars of > Mercury that is why Rahu behave like uchha in these house.. Planet 's > effect in a house influenced by the interrelationship with other > planets who are having any type influence in that house by virtue of > its ghar, pakka ghar, uchha or neecha rashi. > > > > You are right. Nakshatras and Sighns are not used here as used in > traditional astrology. > > > > Regards > > Nirmal > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM, jitinsyal82 <jitinsyal82@ > .co. uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pranam all gurujans, > > it's unfortunate and inconvenient not being able to read urdu hence > > relying on other sources, however i'll do my best to source my > > query/question. > > on page 46 of english edition LK(1952) by Pt. madhav goswami ji it > > says rahu in 1st house is of sign effect, now my concern/query was > > whether rahu behaves as per the sign posited in, as it is obvious > in > > lal kitab that we don't consider sign(rashi) anywhere so why does > the > > text states sign then?(mind you nothing against a learned > individual > > like Pt. goswami ji) > > > > i was almost certain that Pt.joshi ji gave no weightage to > nakshatras > > and rashis in lal kitab but wasn't sure, or i thought may be it's > > just me not being able to understand it properly and as it turns > out > > later was the case. > > i thank you all for clearing my doubt, atleast now i know for sure > > that i only to need to concentrate on the houses rather than the > > signs which they occupy. > > > > yours respectfully > > jitin syal > > > > > > > > , " kapatjal " <kapatjal@> > wrote: > > > > > > dear Friends, > > > > > > As i understand,LK system does not give any importance to the > > signs > > > as given in tne prepared horoscopes by vedic pundits; in fact > signs > > > from 1 to 12 are fixed in the 12 houses of the horoscope. This is > > > the basics of LK astrology. So there is no qustion of there being > > > Rahu or any other planet in any given sign for consideraiton of > the > > > planet as par LK system. > > > > > > with best wishes; > > > sincerely, > > > kiranjit, bhupesh sharma > > > <bhupeshastro@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Jitin Ji > > > > " Rahu in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in " > > > > As you mentioned about Rahu Khna No 1 in LK 1952 English > > Version , > > > It must be a serious mistake because there is no mention of sign > > > even in the LK1952 , LK Farman 1939 , and in the LK 1942 . > > > > > > > > Pandit Bhupesh Shharma > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 11/22/08, Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yograj Prabhakar <yr_prabhakar@> > > > > Re: rahu 1st house > > > > > > > > Saturday, November 22, 2008, 1:48 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jitin > > > > > > > > You have written: > > > > // 'rahu in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in'// > > > > > > > > My dear friend, there is no mention of Sign (Rashi) in the > > chapter > > > Rahu khana number 1 in Lal kitab-1952. I think there is some > > serious > > > mistake in the book/chapter you have mentioned . > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > > > Yograj Prabhakar > > > > > > > > , " jitinsyal82 " > > > <jitinsyal82@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > pranam all gurujans, > > > > > > > > > > i just thought we haven't discussed effect of any planet in a > > > house for > > > > > a long time now so might as well start with rahu in 1st. > > > > > > > > > > i read in english version LK 1952(by pt. madhav goswami ji) > > > that 'rahu > > > > > in 1st shows result as per the sign it is posited in' > > > > > does that mean we take the sign into consideration when > > deriving > > > > > results for rahu in this house? for eg. rahu in gemini would > be > > > > > beneficial and so on........ > > > > > > > > > > i also request everyone to kindly share their knowledge in > > > regards to > > > > > the above situation. > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > yours respectfully > > > > > jitin syal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.