Six fold general significator table for k.p.

[Guest guest]

Dear members

 

With reference to pages 113,114,274,319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k.p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

House No

 

Planets

In the

Sub of

occupants

 

Planets

In the

Star of

occupants

 

 

Occupants in the house

 

Planets

In the

Sub of

House lord

 

Planets

In the

Star of

House lord

 

House lord

 

 

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

R.Dhanabalan

 

 

[Guest guest]

|| Om Gurave Namah ||Om SreeMahaGanaadhipataye Namah Hari Om,

Dear friends,

In some recent mails Contents of earlier Volumes of Prof KSK are emphasised.I had absolutely no knowledge OF 66 edition of Readers .

I thank Sri Dhanabalan R For enlightenment.

I am surprised , however If something is supressed in Vol III,V and VI , Does it mean, The later publications in time of Prof KSK were unreliable and or published in his Name by someone without his approval.May be these later volumes contained examples of cases written by others but published in A & A Magazine and later on added as examples.Did this result in confusion?

If not, is it not possible that those methods were not found adequate?So there was modification in contents.Any clarification possible?

with regards.

OM TATSAT------------------------Swami_RCS

-----------------------" Let us meditate on the glorious effulgence of that Divine Being who hascreated the three worlds.May He Direct our understanding."--

 

-

Dhanabalan R

kpsystem groups

Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:36 PM

Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear members

 

With reference to pages 113,114,274,319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k.p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.

 

 

 

 

House No

 

Planets

In the

Sub of

occupants

 

Planets

In the

Star of

occupants

 

 

Occupants in the house

 

Planets

In the

Sub of

House lord

 

Planets

In the

Star of

House lord

 

House lord

 

 

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

XII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

R.Dhanabalan

 

 

[Guest guest]

The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.

1) p 57 for Badhaka house;

2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;

3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;

4) p 139 for 4;

5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

6) p 244 for 2,7,11;

7) p 256 for 2,5,11;

8) p 269 for 2,5,11;

9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

10) p 301 for 2,6,10;

11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

12) p 308 for 2,6,10 &

13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote:>> > Dear members> > With reference to pages 113,114,274,319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > House No> > Planets> In the > Sub of> occupants> > Planets> In the > Star of> occupants> > > Occupants in the house> > Planets> In the > Sub of> House lord> > Planets> In the > Star of> House lord> > House lord> > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> R.Dhanabalan> > >

[Guest guest]

Dear tw853

 

1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.

 

2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now.

 

So I request you to think in the other way.

 

R.Dhanabalan--- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote:

tw853 <tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

 

 

 

The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.

1) p 57 for Badhaka house;

2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;

3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;

4) p 139 for 4;

5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

6) p 244 for 2,7,11;

7) p 256 for 2,5,11;

8) p 269 for 2,5,11;

9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

10) p 301 for 2,6,10;

11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

12) p 308 for 2,6,10 &

13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> > Dear members> > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > House No> > Planets> In the > Sub of> occupants> > Planets> In the > Star of> occupants> > > Occupants in the house> > Planets> In the > Sub of> House

lord> > Planets> In the > Star of> House lord> > House lord> > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> R.Dhanabalan> > >

[Guest guest]

It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is suspicious.

In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:

"The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."

- Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

 

 

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote:>> Dear tw853> > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now. > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.> 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > 4) p 139 for 4; > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > > > Dear members> > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > Planets> > In the > > Sub of> > occupants> > > > Planets> > In the > > Star of> > occupants> > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > Planets> > In the > > Sub of> > House lord> > > > Planets> > In the > > Star of> > House lord> > > > House lord> > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > >>

[Guest guest]

Dear tw853

 

I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

 

R.Dhanabalan--- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote:

tw853 <tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

 

 

 

It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is suspicious.

In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:

"The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."

- Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

 

 

@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear tw853> > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now. > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six

fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.> 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > 4) p 139 for 4; > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; >

6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > > > Dear members> > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been

supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > Planets> > In the > > Sub of> > occupants> > > > Planets> > In the > > Star of> > occupants> > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > Planets> > In the > > Sub of> > House lord> > > > Planets> > In the > > Star of> > House lord> > > > House lord> > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > R.Dhanabalan> >

> > > >>

[Guest guest]

This is the fact, no controversy at all, no opinion can help.

All these pages have already been scanned but there is some technical

problem in posting them in the file section for all members to see

the truth.

 

 

 

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan

wrote:

>

> Dear tw853

>  

> I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like

Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

>  

> R.Dhanabalan

>

> --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote:

>

> tw853 <tw853

> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

>

> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

>

It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK

as the  significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and

not taking 13 examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing

different,  in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such

biased  presentation is suspicious.

> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji

KSK's finding:

>   " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the

result and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is

favorable or not. "

> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

>  

>

> @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear tw853

> >  

> > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of

volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave

predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of

examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub

as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not

important.

> >  

> > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so

Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have

calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the

facility what we are having now..

> >  

> > So I request you to think in the other way.

> >  

> > R.Dhanabalan

> >

> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> >

> > tw853 tw853@

> > Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

> > @gro ups.com

> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a

write up in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of

the following 13 examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order

of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same

Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.

> >         1)       p 57 for Badhaka house;

> > 2)       p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; 

> > 3)       p 118 for 12,7,5,8; 

> > 4)       p 139 for 4; 

> > 5)       p 236 for 2,7,11; 

> > 6)       p 244 for 2,7,11; 

> > 7)       p 256 for 2,5,11; 

> > 8)       p 269 for 2,5,11; 

> > 9)       pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

> > 10)    p 301 for 2,6,10; 

> > 11)    p 303 for 2,6,10; 

> > 12)    p 308 for 2,6,10 &

> > 13)  p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

> >

> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >  

> > > Dear members

> > >  

> > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy

Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has

considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the

planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This

point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The

existing four fold general significator table has to be converted

into six fold as below to get better results.

> > >  

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > House No

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Sub of

> > > occupants

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Star of

> > > occupants

> > >

> > >  

> > > Occupants in the house

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Sub of

> > > House lord

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Star of

> > > House lord

> > >

> > > House lord

> > >

> > >

> > > I

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > II

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > III

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > IV

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > V

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > VI

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > VII

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > VIII

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > IX

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > X

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > XI

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > XII

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >  

> > > Regards

> > > R.Dhanabalan

> > >  

> > >  

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Dhanapalan,

Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs unnecessary controversies without providing any thing constructive

If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of kp reader published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

S Murughan

 

 

..

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote:>> Dear tw853> > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is suspicious.> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:> "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear tw853> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now.. > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > tw853 tw853@> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.> > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > > 4) p 139 for 4; > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > occupants> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > occupants> > > > > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > House lord> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > House lord> > > > > > House lord> > > > > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

dear dhanabalan,

i am following 4 step theory,in which some rules are conflicting

to original kp method.so i dont think it is some contraversy

in kp method which you are referring.

i have already sent the messsage that in KPreaders other articles

of kp followers are included.that doesnt mean that kpreaders are not

to be followed.

whether you follow 4 fold/6 fold/4 step theory is not a

matter.the experience is the great teacher.

thanks

-sunil gondhalekar

 

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan

wrote:

>

> Dear tw853

>  

> I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like

Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

>  

> R.Dhanabalan

>

> --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote:

>

> tw853 <tw853

> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

>

> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

>

It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK

as the  significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and

not taking 13 examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing

different,  in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such

biased  presentation is suspicious.

> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji

KSK's finding:

>   " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the

result and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is

favorable or not. "

> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

>  

>

> @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear tw853

> >  

> > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of

volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave

predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of

examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub

as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is

not important.

> >  

> > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so

Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have

calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the

facility what we are having now..

> >  

> > So I request you to think in the other way.

> >  

> > R.Dhanabalan

> >

> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> >

> > tw853 tw853@

> > Re: Six fold general significator table

for k.p.

> > @gro ups.com

> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a

write up in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of

the following 13 examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order

of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same

Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.

> >         1)       p 57 for Badhaka house;

> > 2)       p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; 

> > 3)       p 118 for 12,7,5,8; 

> > 4)       p 139 for 4; 

> > 5)       p 236 for 2,7,11; 

> > 6)       p 244 for 2,7,11; 

> > 7)       p 256 for 2,5,11; 

> > 8)       p 269 for 2,5,11; 

> > 9)       pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

> > 10)    p 301 for 2,6,10; 

> > 11)    p 303 for 2,6,10; 

> > 12)    p 308 for 2,6,10 &

> > 13)  p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

> >

> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > >  

> > > Dear members

> > >  

> > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy

Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has

considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the

planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators.

This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The

existing four fold general significator table has to be converted

into six fold as below to get better results.

> > >  

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > House No

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Sub of

> > > occupants

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Star of

> > > occupants

> > >

> > >  

> > > Occupants in the house

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Sub of

> > > House lord

> > >

> > > Planets

> > > In the

> > > Star of

> > > House lord

> > >

> > > House lord

> > >

> > >

> > > I

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > II

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > III

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > IV

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > V

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > VI

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > VII

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > VIII

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > IX

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > X

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > XI

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >

> > > XII

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >

> > >  

> > >  

> > > Regards

> > > R.Dhanabalan

> > >  

> > >  

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear sunialaka

 

You agree that in k.p.Readers, other k.p. followers articles are included as though those were written by Mr.KSK.

 

My contention is that all the Readers were not written by Mr.KSK.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Mon, 8/4/08, sunilalaka <sunilalaka wrote:

sunilalaka <sunilalaka Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 8:51 AM

 

 

dear dhanabalan,i am following 4 step theory,in which some rules are conflictingto original kp method.so i dont think it is some contraversyin kp method which you are referring.i have already sent the messsage that in KPreaders other articlesof kp followers are included.that doesnt mean that kpreaders are not to be followed.whether you follow 4 fold/6 fold/4 step theory is not a matter.the experience is the great teacher.thanks-sunil gondhalekar@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear tw853> > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 <tw853 wrote:> >

tw853 <tw853> Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is suspicious.> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:> "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."> - Krishnamurti

Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear tw853> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now.. > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > >

R.Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > tw853 tw853@> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.> > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11

houses; > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > > 4) p 139 for 4; > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Dear

members> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > occupants> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > occupants> > > > > >

> > > Occupants in the house> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > House lord> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > House lord> > > > > > House lord> > > > > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear sakthivel

 

My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. For that I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is about the k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is boring, do not go through this, you can do something useful to you.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan wrote:

sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

 

 

 

Hey Dhanapalan,

Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs unnecessary controversies without providing any thing constructive

If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of kp reader published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

S Murughan

 

 

..

@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear tw853> > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is

suspicious.> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:> "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear tw853> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle

through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now.. > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > tw853 tw853@> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966,

Sagar Publications itself.> > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > > 4) p 139 for 4; > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > >

13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of>

> > occupants> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > occupants> > > > > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > House lord> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > House lord> > > > > > House lord> > > > > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan,

So what ? !

It doesn't matter so long it has been writen by some of the best students of KSK...

What is troubling you ?

L.Y.Rao.

 

Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan Sent: Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AMRe: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear sakthivel

 

My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. For that I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is about the k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is boring, do not go through this, you can do something useful to you.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > wrote:

sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.@gro ups.comMonday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

 

 

 

Hey Dhanapalan,

Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs unnecessary controversies without providing any thing constructive

If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of kp reader published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

S Murughan

 

 

..

@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear tw853> > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is

suspicious.> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:> "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear tw853> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle

through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now.. > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > tw853 tw853@> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966,

Sagar Publications itself.> > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > > 4) p 139 for 4; > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > >

13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of>

> > occupants> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > occupants> > > > > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > House lord> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > House lord> > > > > > House lord> > > > > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > > > >> >>

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

[Guest guest]

Dear yogesh Rao

 

I have no objection if the author of the article also included in that article. The identity of the author should be revealed. The best students of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the practice everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in the k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote:

Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1Re: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,

So what ? !

It doesn't matter so long it has been writen by some of the best students of KSK...

What is troubling you ?

L.Y.Rao.

 

Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >@gro ups.comTuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AMRe: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear sakthivel

 

My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. For that I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is about the k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is boring, do not go through this, you can do something useful to you.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > wrote:

sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.@gro ups.comMonday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

 

 

 

Hey Dhanapalan,

Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs unnecessary controversies without providing any thing constructive

If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of kp reader published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

S Murughan

 

 

..

@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear tw853> > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is

suspicious.> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:> "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear tw853> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle

through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now.. > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > tw853 tw853@> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966,

Sagar Publications itself.> > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > > 4) p 139 for 4; > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > >

13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of>

> > occupants> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > occupants> > > > > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > House lord> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > House lord> > > > > > House lord> > > > > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > > > >> >>

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan,

The author's name has not been given...In fact the book has many articles,perhaps printed in old K.P. & Astrology Magazines...but I agree with you that the authors' names should have been given...

L.Y.Rao.

 

 

Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan Sent: Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 1:27:16 PMRe: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear yogesh Rao

 

I have no objection if the author of the article also included in that article. The identity of the author should be revealed. The best students of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the practice everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in the k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 (AT) (DOT) co.in>Re: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.@gro ups.comTuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,

So what ? !

It doesn't matter so long it has been writen by some of the best students of KSK...

What is troubling you ?

L.Y.Rao.

 

Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >@gro ups.comTuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AMRe: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear sakthivel

 

My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. For that I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is about the k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is boring, do not go through this, you can do something useful to you.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > wrote:

sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.@gro ups.comMonday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

 

 

 

Hey Dhanapalan,

Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs unnecessary controversies without providing any thing constructive

If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of kp reader published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

S Murughan

 

 

..

@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear tw853> > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13 examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is

suspicious.> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:> "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear tw853> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle

through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now.. > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > tw853 tw853@> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966,

Sagar Publications itself.> > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > > 4) p 139 for 4; > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11; > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10; > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > >

13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of>

> > occupants> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > occupants> > > > > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > House lord> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > House lord> > > > > > House lord> > > > > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XI> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > > > >> >>

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan

 

I agree with your point that authors' name should have been included so that readers must know the original articles by great KSK and added articles by the kp followers.

 

Dr Sheetal

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear yogesh Rao

 

I have no objection if the author of the article also included in that article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The best students of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the practice everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in the k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote:

Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 Re: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,

So what ? !

It doesn't matter so long it has been writen by some of the best students of KSK...

What is troubling you ?

L.Y.Rao.

 

 

Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >

 

 

@gro ups.comTuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AMRe: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear sakthivel

 

My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. For that I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is about the k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is boring, do not go through this, you can do something useful to you.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > wrote:

sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

@gro ups.comMonday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

 

 

 

Hey Dhanapalan,

Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs unnecessary controversies without providing any thing constructive

If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of kp reader published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

S Murughan

 

 

..

@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear tw853> > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur, Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

> > R.Dhanabalan> > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853 wrote:> > tw853 tw853 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com

> Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and not taking 13 examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing different, in the same KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is suspicious.

> In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's finding:> " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is favorable or not. "

> - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear tw853

> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is important. Number is not important.

> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having now..

> > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > tw853 tw853@

> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of the following 13 examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966, Sagar Publications itself.

> > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses; > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8; > > 4) p 139 for 4; > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

> > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11; > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11; > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11; > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10; > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

> > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:

> > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better results.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > House No> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of

> > > occupants> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of> > > occupants> > > > > > > > > Occupants in the house

> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Sub of> > > House lord> > > > > > Planets> > > In the > > > Star of

> > > House lord> > > > > > House lord> > > > > > > > > I> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > II> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > III> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > IV> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > V> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VI> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > VII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IX> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X> > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > XI> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > XII> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards> > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > > > >> >

>

 

 

 

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan,

 

 

Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do

two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an improvement.

 

Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded up

with the Vedic baggage.

 

Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK

spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha. You

really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we in Kp

group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no relevance.

Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.

 

If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce

a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon

sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer all

such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is getting

to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we are

smarter than KSK.Are we ??

 

 

My simple suggestion, please do carry out research

in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your points.

You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )

 

Regards,

 

 

Satish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Sheetal <ratnamalag wrote:

>

> Dear Dhanabalan

>

> I agree with your point that authors' name should have been

included so that

> readers must know the original articles by great KSK and added

articles by

> the kp followers.

>

> Dr Sheetal

>

>

>

>

> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan

wrote:

>

> > Dear yogesh Rao

> >

> > I have no objection if the author of the article also included in

that

> > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The

best students

> > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the

practice

> > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in

the

> > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

> >

> > Dhanabalan

> >

> > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1* wrote:

> >

> > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1

> > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table

for k.p.

> >

> > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

> >

> > Dear Dhanabalan,

> > So what ? !

> > It doesn't matter so long it has been

writen by

> > some of the best students of KSK...

> > What is troubling you ?

> > L.Y.Rao.

> >

> >

> > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >

> > @gro ups.com

> > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM

> > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table

for k.p.

> >

> > Dear sakthivel

> >

> > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK.

For that

> > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is

about the

> > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is

boring, do not

> > go through this, you can do something useful to you.

> >

> > Dhanabalan

> >

> > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@

>*wrote:

> >

> > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan@ >

> > Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

> > @gro ups.com

> > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

> >

> > Hey Dhanapalan,

> > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs

unnecessary

> > controversies without providing any thing constructive

> > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of

kp reader

> > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

> > S Murughan

> >

> >

> >

> > .

> >

> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear tw853

> > >

> > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like

Mr.Raichur,

> > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

> > >

> > > R.Dhanabalan

> > >

> > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > >

> > > tw853 tw853@

> > > Re: Six fold general significator table

for k.p.

> > > @gro ups.com

> > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji

KSK as the

> > significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and not

taking 13

> > examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing different, in

the same

> > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is

suspicious.

> > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following

Guruji KSK's

> > finding:

> > > " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of

the result

> > and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is

favorable or not. "

> > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

> > >

> > >

> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear tw853

> > > >

> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of

volume II

> > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions

without

> > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with

sub, so we

> > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless.

Principle is

> > important. Number is not important.

> > > >

> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so

Mr.KSK

> > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have

calculated all the

> > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we

are having

> > now..

> > > >

> > > > So I request you to think in the other way.

> > > >

> > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table

for k.p.

> > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and

a write up

> > in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of the

following 13

> > examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order of KP

significaton is

> > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati,

Vol. 2, 1966,

> > Sagar Publications itself.

> > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;

> > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;

> > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;

> > > > 4) p 139 for 4;

> > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

> > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;

> > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;

> > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;

> > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

> > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;

> > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

> > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 &

> > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

> > > >

> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear members

> > > > >

> > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of

Krishnamoorthy

> > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK

has

> > considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the

planets in

> > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point

has been

> > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four

fold general

> > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to

get better

> > results.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > House No

> > > > >

> > > > > Planets

> > > > > In the

> > > > > Sub of

> > > > > occupants

> > > > >

> > > > > Planets

> > > > > In the

> > > > > Star of

> > > > > occupants

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Occupants in the house

> > > > >

> > > > > Planets

> > > > > In the

> > > > > Sub of

> > > > > House lord

> > > > >

> > > > > Planets

> > > > > In the

> > > > > Star of

> > > > > House lord

> > > > >

> > > > > House lord

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > II

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > III

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > IV

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > V

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > VI

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > VII

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > VIII

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > IX

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > X

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > XI

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > XII

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Regards

> > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------

> > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India

Messenger.<http://in.rd./tagline_messenger_1/*http://in.messe

nger./?wm=n/>

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear satish

 

"Research in actual case studies"

with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a meaning in research.

 

Dhanabalan

--- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942 wrote:

R Satish <rsatish1942 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an improvement.Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded up with the Vedic baggage. Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha. You really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we in Kp group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no relevance. Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer all such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is getting to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we are

smarter than KSK.Are we ??My simple suggestion, please do carry out research in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your points. You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )Regards,Satish@gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Dhanabalan> > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been included so that> readers must know the original articles by great KSK and added articles by> the kp followers.> > Dr Sheetal> > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:> > > Dear yogesh Rao> >> > I have no objection if the author of the article also included in that> >

article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The best students> > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the practice> > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in the> > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.> >> > Dhanabalan> >> > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@. ..>* wrote:> >> > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@. ..>> > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM> >> > Dear Dhanabalan,> > So what ? !> > It doesn't matter so long it has been writen by> > some of the best students of KSK...> >

What is troubling you ?> > L.Y.Rao.> >> > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >> > @gro ups.com> > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM> > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> >> > Dear sakthivel> >> > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. For that> > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is about the> > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is boring, do not> > go through this, you can do something useful to you.> >> > Dhanabalan> >> > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >*wrote:> >> > sakthivel_murughan

<sakthivel_murughan @ >> > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM> >> > Hey Dhanapalan,> > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs unnecessary> > controversies without providing any thing constructive> > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of kp reader> > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.> > S Murughan> >> >> >> > .> >> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > wrote:> > >> > > Dear tw853> > >> > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like Mr.Raichur,> > Sunil

Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > >> > > R.Dhanabalan> > >> > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > >> > > tw853 tw853@> > > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > > @gro ups.com> > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji KSK as the> > significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not taking 13> > examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in the same> > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is suspicious.> > > In addition, such saying is

inconsistent with the following Guruji KSK's> > finding:> > > "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of the result> > and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is favorable or not."> > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > >> > >> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear tw853> > > >> > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of volume II> > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions without> > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with sub, so we> > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. Principle is> > important. Number is not

important.> > > >> > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so Mr.KSK> > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have calculated all the> > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we are having> > now..> > > >> > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > >> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > >> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > >> > > > tw853 tw853@> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> > > > @gro ups.com> > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >

>> > > >> > > >> > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and a write up> > in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the following 13> > examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP significaton is> > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, 1966,> > Sagar Publications itself.> > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;> > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;> > > > 4) p 139 for 4;> > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;> > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;> > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;> > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;> > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;> > > > 11) p 303 for

2,6,10;> > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > >> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > wrote:> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Dear members> > > > >> > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of Krishnamoorthy> > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK has> > considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the planets in> > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point has been> > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four fold general> > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to get better> > results.> >

> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > House No> > > > >> > > > > Planets> > > > > In the> > > > > Sub of> > > > > occupants> > > > >> > > > > Planets> > > > > In the> > > > > Star of> > > > > occupants> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > >> > > > > Planets> > > > > In the> > > > > Sub of> > > > > House lord> > > > >> > > > > Planets> > > > > In the> > > > > Star of> >

> > > House lord> > > > >> > > > > House lord> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > II> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >

>> > > > >> > > > > III> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > IV> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > V> > > > >> > > >

>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > VI> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > VII> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >

>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > VIII> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > IX> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >

>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > X> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > XI> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >

>> > > > > XII> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Regards> > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > ------------ --------- ---------> > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge r_1/*http: //in.messenger./

?wm=n/>> >> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan,

 

Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.

 

we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait for

 

group approval, it will be eternity.

 

 

The rules that you have succeeded with , is all

 

that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know.

 

 

Best wishes.

 

 

Satish

 

 

 

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan

wrote:

>

> Dear satish

>  

> " Research in actual case studies "

>

> with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a meaning

in research.

>  

> Dhanabalan

>

> --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942 wrote:

>

> R Satish <rsatish1942

> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

>

> Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM

>

Dear Dhanabalan,

>

> Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do

> two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an

improvement.

>

> Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded

up

> with the Vedic baggage.

>

> Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK

> spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha. You

> really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we in

Kp

> group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no

relevance.

> Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.

>

> If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce

> a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon

> sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer all

> such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is

getting

> to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we are

> smarter than KSK.Are we ??

>

> My simple suggestion, please do carry out research

> in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your

points.

> You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )

>

> Regards,

>

> Satish

>

> @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Dhanabalan

> >

> > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been

> included so that

> > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and added

> articles by

> > the kp followers.

> >

> > Dr Sheetal

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > > Dear yogesh Rao

> > >

> > > I have no objection if the author of the article also included

in

> that

> > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The

> best students

> > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the

> practice

> > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material

in

> the

> > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

> > >

> > > Dhanabalan

> > >

> > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>* wrote:

> > >

> > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>

> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator

table

> for k.p.

> > > @gro ups.com

> > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

> > >

> > > Dear Dhanabalan,

> > > So what ? !

> > > It doesn't matter so long it has been

> writen by

> > > some of the best students of KSK...

> > > What is troubling you ?

> > > L.Y.Rao.

> > >

> > >

> > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >

> > > @gro ups.com

> > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM

> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator

table

> for k.p.

> > >

> > > Dear sakthivel

> > >

> > > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by

Mr.KSK.

> For that

> > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is

> about the

> > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is

> boring, do not

> > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.

> > >

> > > Dhanabalan

> > >

> > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @

> >*wrote:

> > >

> > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >

> > > Re: Six fold general significator table

for

> k.p.

> > > @gro ups.com

> > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

> > >

> > > Hey Dhanapalan,

> > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs

> unnecessary

> > > controversies without providing any thing constructive

> > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition

of

> kp reader

> > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

> > > S Murughan

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > .

> > >

> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear tw853

> > > >

> > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like

> Mr.Raichur,

> > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

> > > >

> > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > >

> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table

> for k.p.

> > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji

> KSK as the

> > > significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and not

> taking 13

> > > examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing different,

in

> the same

> > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is

> suspicious.

> > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following

> Guruji KSK's

> > > finding:

> > > > " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of

> the result

> > > and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is

> favorable or not. "

> > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear tw853

> > > > >

> > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of

> volume II

> > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions

> without

> > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than

with

> sub, so we

> > > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless.

> Principle is

> > > important. Number is not important.

> > > > >

> > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer,

so

> Mr.KSK

> > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have

> calculated all the

> > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we

> are having

> > > now..

> > > > >

> > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.

> > > > >

> > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

table

> for k.p.

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274

and

> a write up

> > > in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of the

> following 13

> > > examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order of KP

> significaton is

> > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati,

> Vol. 2, 1966,

> > > Sagar Publications itself.

> > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;

> > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;

> > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;

> > > > > 4) p 139 for 4;

> > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

> > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 &

> > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

> > > > >

> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear members

> > > > > >

> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of

> Krishnamoorthy

> > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966,

Mr.KSK

> has

> > > considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the

> planets in

> > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This

point

> has been

> > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four

> fold general

> > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below

to

> get better

> > > results.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > House No

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > In the

> > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > occupants

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > In the

> > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > occupants

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Occupants in the house

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > In the

> > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > House lord

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > In the

> > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > House lord

> > > > > >

> > > > > > House lord

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > II

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > III

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > IV

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > V

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > VI

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > VII

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > VIII

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > IX

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > X

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > XI

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > XII

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ------------ --------- ---------

> > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India

> Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge

r_1/*http: //in.messe

> nger./ ?wm=n/>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish

 

According to me, k.p. system is 100% vedic. Most of the rules in the original volumes(1966) are go in line with vedic, so it is correct.

 

Sub's star theory is considerd in the present k.p. Readers which I do not agree.

 

According to me sub is a sub only. Sub is not a planet.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942 wrote:

R Satish <rsatish1942 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 5:25 AM

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait for group approval, it will be eternity.The rules that you have succeeded with , is all that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know. Best wishes.Satish@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear satish> > "Research in actual case studies" > > with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a meaning in research. > > Dhanabalan> > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:> > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.> @gro ups.com> Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM> > > > > > > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do > two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an improvement.> > Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded up > with the Vedic baggage. > > Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK > spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha. You > really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we in Kp > group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no relevance. > Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.> > If this was so,

KSK had no' business' to introduce > a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon > sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer all > such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is getting > to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we are > smarter than KSK.Are we ??> > My simple suggestion, please do carry out research > in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your points. > You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )> > Regards,> > Satish> > @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear Dhanabalan> > > > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been > included so that> > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and

added > articles by> > the kp followers.> > > > Dr Sheetal> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> > wrote:> > > > > Dear yogesh Rao> > >> > > I have no objection if the author of the article also included in > that> > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The > best students> > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the > practice> > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in > the> > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.> > >> > > Dhanabalan> > >> > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>* wrote:> > >> > >

Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > @gro ups.com> > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM> > >> > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > > So what ? !> > > It doesn't matter so long it has been > writen by> > > some of the best students of KSK...> > > What is troubling you ?> > > L.Y.Rao.> > >> > > > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >> > > @gro ups.com> > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > >> > > Dear sakthivel> > >> >

> My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. > For that> > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is > about the> > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is > boring, do not> > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.> > >> > > Dhanabalan> > >> > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ > >*wrote:> > >> > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >> > > Re: Six fold general significator table for > k.p.> > > @gro ups.com> > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM> > >> > > Hey Dhanapalan,> > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you

mails that stirs > unnecessary> > > controversies without providing any thing constructive> > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of > kp reader> > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.> > > S Murughan> > >> > >> > >> > > .> > >> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear tw853> > > >> > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like > Mr.Raichur,> > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > > >> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > >> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > >>

> > > tw853 tw853@> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > > @gro ups.com> > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji > KSK as the> > > significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not > taking 13> > > examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in > the same> > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is > suspicious.> > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following > Guruji KSK's> > > finding:>

> > > "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of > the result> > > and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is > favorable or not."> > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > >> > > >> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear tw853> > > > >> > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of > volume II> > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions > without> > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with > sub, so we> > > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. > Principle is> > >

important. Number is not important.> > > > >> > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so > Mr.KSK> > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have > calculated all the> > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we > are having> > > now..> > > > >> > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > >> > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > >> > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > > tw853 tw853@> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > > > @gro ups.com> > > > > Sunday, August 3,

2008, 4:47 AM> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and > a write up> > > in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the > following 13> > > examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP > significaton is> > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, > Vol. 2, 1966,> > > Sagar Publications itself.> > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;> > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;> > > > > 4) p 139 for 4;> > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;> > > > > 6) p

244 for 2,7,11;> > > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;> > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;> > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;> > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;> > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > >> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > >> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of > Krishnamoorthy> > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK > has> > > considered the planets in the star and sub of

occupants and the > planets in> > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point > has been> > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four > fold general> > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to > get better> > > results.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > House No> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > occupants> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Star

of> > > > > > occupants> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Star of> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >

> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > II> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > III> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >

> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > IV> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > V> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VI> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VIII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > IX> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > X> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > XI> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > XII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Regards> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan> >

> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ------------ --------- ---------> > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India > Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge r_1/*http: //in.messe> nger./ ?wm=n/>> > >> > >> > > > > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan,

You have given your opinion about the sub..."according to your thinking..."

Very few agree with you... !

L.Y.Rao.

 

Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan Sent: Wednesday, 6 August, 2008 11:28:31 AMRe: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Satish

 

According to me, k.p. system is 100% vedic. Most of the rules in the original volumes(1966) are go in line with vedic, so it is correct.

 

Sub's star theory is considerd in the present k.p. Readers which I do not agree.

 

According to me sub is a sub only. Sub is not a planet.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ > wrote:

R Satish <rsatish1942@ > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.@gro ups.comWednesday, August 6, 2008, 5:25 AM

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait for group approval, it will be eternity.The rules that you have succeeded with , is all that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know. Best wishes.Satish@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear satish> > "Research in actual case studies" > > with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a meaning in research. > > Dhanabalan> > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:> > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>> Re: Six

fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM> > > > > > > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do > two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an improvement.> > Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded up > with the Vedic baggage. > > Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK > spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha. You > really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we in Kp > group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no relevance. > Research as per

files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.> > If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce > a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon > sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer all > such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is getting > to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we are > smarter than KSK.Are we ??> > My simple suggestion, please do carry out research > in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your points. > You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )> > Regards,> > Satish> > @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear Dhanabalan> > > > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been > included

so that> > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and added > articles by> > the kp followers.> > > > Dr Sheetal> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> > wrote:> > > > > Dear yogesh Rao> > >> > > I have no objection if the author of the article also included in > that> > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The > best students> > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the > practice> > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in > the> > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.> > >> > > Dhanabalan> > >> > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao

Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>* wrote:> > >> > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > @gro ups.com> > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM> > >> > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > > So what ? !> > > It doesn't matter so long it has been > writen by> > > some of the best students of KSK...> > > What is troubling you ?> > > L.Y.Rao.> > >> > > > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >> > > @gro ups.com> > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.>

> >> > > Dear sakthivel> > >> > > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. > For that> > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is > about the> > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is > boring, do not> > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.> > >> > > Dhanabalan> > >> > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ > >*wrote:> > >> > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >> > > Re: Six fold general significator table for > k.p.> > > @gro ups.com> > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM> > >> > > Hey

Dhanapalan,> > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs > unnecessary> > > controversies without providing any thing constructive> > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of > kp reader> > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.> > > S Murughan> > >> > >> > >> > > .> > >> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear tw853> > > >> > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like > Mr.Raichur,> > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > > >> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > >> > >

> --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > >> > > > tw853 tw853@> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > > @gro ups.com> > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji > KSK as the> > > significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not > taking 13> > > examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in > the same> > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is > suspicious.> > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent

with the following > Guruji KSK's> > > finding:> > > > "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of > the result> > > and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is > favorable or not."> > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > >> > > >> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear tw853> > > > >> > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of > volume II> > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions > without> > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with > sub, so we> > > need not consider the sub

as significator is meaningless. > Principle is> > > important. Number is not important.> > > > >> > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so > Mr.KSK> > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have > calculated all the> > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we > are having> > > now..> > > > >> > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > >> > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > >> > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > > tw853 tw853@> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > > > To:

@gro ups.com> > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and > a write up> > > in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the > following 13> > > examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP > significaton is> > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, > Vol. 2, 1966,> > > Sagar Publications itself.> > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;> > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;> > > > > 4) p 139 for

4;> > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;> > > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;> > > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;> > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;> > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;> > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;> > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > >> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > >> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of > Krishnamoorthy> > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966,

Mr.KSK > has> > > considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the > planets in> > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point > has been> > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four > fold general> > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to > get better> > > results.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > House No> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > occupants> > > > > >> > > > >

> Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Star of> > > > > > occupants> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Star of> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > II> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > III> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > IV> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > V> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VI> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VII> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VIII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >

IX> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > X> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > > XI> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > XII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > > Regards> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ------------ --------- ---------> > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India > Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge r_1/*http: //in.messe> nger./ ?wm=n/>> > >> > >> > > > > >> >>

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

[Guest guest]

Dear Yogesh Rao

 

It is not my thinking, it is the thinking of Mr.KSK.

 

In the original volumes (1966) , Mr.KSK did not take sub's star. Most of the k.p. astrologers have not gone through these volume. They started to read only all the k.p.Readers. All their mind have set. According to me, all the k.p. Readers were not written by Mr.KSK.

 

Out of compulsion, they have introduced the sub's star theory in the Readers to solve the copy right problem and not on research.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1 wrote:

Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1Re: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 7:23 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,

You have given your opinion about the sub..."according to your thinking..."

Very few agree with you... !

L.Y.Rao.

 

Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >@gro ups.comWednesday, 6 August, 2008 11:28:31 AMRe: Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Satish

 

According to me, k.p. system is 100% vedic. Most of the rules in the original volumes(1966) are go in line with vedic, so it is correct.

 

Sub's star theory is considerd in the present k.p. Readers which I do not agree.

 

According to me sub is a sub only. Sub is not a planet.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ > wrote:

R Satish <rsatish1942@ > Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.@gro ups.comWednesday, August 6, 2008, 5:25 AM

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait for group approval, it will be eternity.The rules that you have succeeded with , is all that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know. Best wishes.Satish@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear satish> > "Research in actual case studies" > > with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a meaning in research. > > Dhanabalan> > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:> > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.> @gro ups.com> Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM> > > > > > > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do > two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an improvement.> > Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded up > with the Vedic baggage. > > Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK > spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha. You > really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we in Kp > group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no relevance. > Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.> > If this was so,

KSK had no' business' to introduce > a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon > sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer all > such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is getting > to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we are > smarter than KSK.Are we ??> > My simple suggestion, please do carry out research > in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your points. > You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )> > Regards,> > Satish> > @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...> wrote:> >> > Dear Dhanabalan> > > > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been > included so that> > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and

added > articles by> > the kp followers.> > > > Dr Sheetal> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> > wrote:> > > > > Dear yogesh Rao> > >> > > I have no objection if the author of the article also included in > that> > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The > best students> > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the > practice> > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material in > the> > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.> > >> > > Dhanabalan> > >> > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>* wrote:> > >> > >

Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > @gro ups.com> > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM> > >> > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > > So what ? !> > > It doesn't matter so long it has been > writen by> > > some of the best students of KSK...> > > What is troubling you ?> > > L.Y.Rao.> > >> > > > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >> > > @gro ups.com> > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM> > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > >> > > Dear sakthivel> > >> >

> My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by Mr.KSK. > For that> > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is > about the> > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is > boring, do not> > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.> > >> > > Dhanabalan> > >> > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ > >*wrote:> > >> > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >> > > Re: Six fold general significator table for > k.p.> > > @gro ups.com> > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM> > >> > > Hey Dhanapalan,> > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you

mails that stirs > unnecessary> > > controversies without providing any thing constructive> > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition of > kp reader> > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.> > > S Murughan> > >> > >> > >> > > .> > >> > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > >> > > > Dear tw853> > > >> > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like > Mr.Raichur,> > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > > >> > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > >> > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > >>

> > > tw853 tw853@> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > > @gro ups.com> > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by Guruji > KSK as the> > > significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not > taking 13> > > examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, in > the same> > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is > suspicious.> > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following > Guruji KSK's> > > finding:>

> > > "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of > the result> > > and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is > favorable or not."> > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > >> > > >> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear tw853> > > > >> > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of > volume II> > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions > without> > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than with > sub, so we> > > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. > Principle is> > >

important. Number is not important.> > > > >> > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, so > Mr.KSK> > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have > calculated all the> > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we > are having> > > now..> > > > >> > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > >> > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > >> > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > > tw853 tw853@> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator table > for k.p.> > > > > @gro ups.com> > > > > Sunday, August 3,

2008, 4:47 AM> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 and > a write up> > > in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the > following 13> > > examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP > significaton is> > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, > Vol. 2, 1966,> > > Sagar Publications itself.> > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;> > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;> > > > > 4) p 139 for 4;> > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;> > > > > 6) p

244 for 2,7,11;> > > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;> > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;> > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;> > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;> > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > >> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear members> > > > > >> > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of > Krishnamoorthy> > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, Mr.KSK > has> > > considered the planets in the star and sub of

occupants and the > planets in> > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This point > has been> > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four > fold general> > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below to > get better> > > results.> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > House No> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > occupants> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Star

of> > > > > > occupants> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > > Planets> > > > > > In the> > > > > > Star of> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > > House lord> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > I> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >

> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > II> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > III> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >

> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > IV> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > V> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VI> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > VIII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > IX> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > X> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > XI> > > > > >> > > > >

>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > XII> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > Regards> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan> >

> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ------------ --------- ---------> > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India > Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge r_1/*http: //in.messe> nger./ ?wm=n/>> > >> > >> > > > > >> >>

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan,

 

Accepted what you say is 100% true,sub theory is

what most people follow.

 

As suggested to you earlier, please give your

hypothesis, a working formula, do the exercise on 100 horoscopes at

least. The results will exemplify your findings.

 

I am sure the entire group is waiting for your

research findings. Sermonizing time is over.

 

Please ACT NOW.

 

Best wishes.

 

Regards,

 

Satish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan

wrote:

>

> Dear Satish

>  

> According to me, k.p. system is 100% vedic. Most of the rules

in the  original volumes(1966) are go in line with vedic, so it is

correct.

>  

> Sub's star theory is considerd in the present k.p. Readers which I

do not agree. 

>  

> According to me sub is a sub only. Sub is not a planet.

>  

>  Dhanabalan

>

> --- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942 wrote:

>

> R Satish <rsatish1942

> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

>

> Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 5:25 AM

>

Dear Dhanabalan,

>

> Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.

>

> we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait for

>

> group approval, it will be eternity.

>

> The rules that you have succeeded with , is all

>

> that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know.

>

> Best wishes.

>

> Satish

>

> @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear satish

> >  

> > " Research in actual case studies "

> >

> > with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a

meaning

> in research.

> >  

> > Dhanabalan

> >

> > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>

> > Re: Six fold general significator table for

> k.p.

> > @gro ups.com

> > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Dhanabalan,

> >

> > Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do

> > two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an

> improvement.

> >

> > Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded

> up

> > with the Vedic baggage.

> >

> > Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK

> > spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha.

You

> > really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we

in

> Kp

> > group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no

> relevance.

> > Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.

> >

> > If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce

> > a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon

> > sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer

all

> > such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is

> getting

> > to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we

are

> > smarter than KSK.Are we ??

> >

> > My simple suggestion, please do carry out research

> > in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your

> points.

> > You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Satish

> >

> > @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Dhanabalan

> > >

> > > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been

> > included so that

> > > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and added

> > articles by

> > > the kp followers.

> > >

> > > Dr Sheetal

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear yogesh Rao

> > > >

> > > > I have no objection if the author of the article also

included

> in

> > that

> > > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The

> > best students

> > > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the

> > practice

> > > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire

material

> in

> > the

> > > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

> > > >

> > > > Dhanabalan

> > > >

> > > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>* wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>

> > > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator

> table

> > for k.p.

> > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

> > > >

> > > > Dear Dhanabalan,

> > > > So what ? !

> > > > It doesn't matter so long it has been

> > writen by

> > > > some of the best students of KSK...

> > > > What is troubling you ?

> > > > L.Y.Rao.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >

> > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM

> > > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator

> table

> > for k.p.

> > > >

> > > > Dear sakthivel

> > > >

> > > > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by

> Mr.KSK.

> > For that

> > > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is

> > about the

> > > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is

> > boring, do not

> > > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.

> > > >

> > > > Dhanabalan

> > > >

> > > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @

> > >*wrote:

> > > >

> > > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >

> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table

> for

> > k.p.

> > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

> > > >

> > > > Hey Dhanapalan,

> > > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that

stirs

> > unnecessary

> > > > controversies without providing any thing constructive

> > > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition

> of

> > kp reader

> > > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

> > > > S Murughan

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear tw853

> > > > >

> > > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like

> > Mr.Raichur,

> > > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

> > > > >

> > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

table

> > for k.p.

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by

Guruji

> > KSK as the

> > > > significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and

not

> > taking 13

> > > > examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing different,

> in

> > the same

> > > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is

> > suspicious.

> > > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following

> > Guruji KSK's

> > > > finding:

> > > > > " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature

of

> > the result

> > > > and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is

> > favorable or not. "

> > > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear tw853

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320

of

> > volume II

> > > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave

predictions

> > without

> > > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than

> with

> > sub, so we

> > > > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless.

> > Principle is

> > > > important. Number is not important.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no

computer,

> so

> > Mr.KSK

> > > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have

> > calculated all the

> > > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what

we

> > are having

> > > > now..

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

> table

> > for k.p.

> > > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274

> and

> > a write up

> > > > in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of the

> > following 13

> > > > examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order of KP

> > significaton is

> > > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati,

> > Vol. 2, 1966,

> > > > Sagar Publications itself.

> > > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;

> > > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;

> > > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;

> > > > > > 4) p 139 for 4;

> > > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

> > > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 &

> > > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

> > > > > >

> > > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear members

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of

> > Krishnamoorthy

> > > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966,

> Mr.KSK

> > has

> > > > considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and

the

> > planets in

> > > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This

> point

> > has been

> > > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four

> > fold general

> > > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below

> to

> > get better

> > > > results.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > House No

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > > occupants

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > > occupants

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Occupants in the house

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > II

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > III

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > IV

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > V

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > VI

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > VII

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > VIII

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > IX

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > X

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > XI

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > XII

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ------------ --------- ---------

> > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India

> > Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge

> r_1/*http: //in.messe

> > nger./ ?wm=n/>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish

 

There is no need for me to prove my formula, since Mr.KSK has already proved. He got the title "Jyothida Marthand " and Gold Medal for the formula. Research was already done by Mr.KSK in the year 1965 itself.

 

Is there any research for the sub's star theory by Mr.KSK.

 

Dhanabalan--- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942 wrote:

R Satish <rsatish1942 Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p. Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 2:19 PM

 

 

Dear Dhanabalan,Accepted what you say is 100% true,sub theory is what most people follow.As suggested to you earlier, please give your hypothesis, a working formula, do the exercise on 100 horoscopes at least. The results will exemplify your findings.I am sure the entire group is waiting for your research findings. Sermonizing time is over.Please ACT NOW.Best wishes.Regards,Satish@gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Satish> > According to me, k.p. system is 100% vedic. Most of the rules in the original volumes(1966) are go in line with vedic, so it is correct. > > Sub's star theory is considerd in the present k.p. Readers which I do not agree. >

> According to me sub is a sub only. Sub is not a planet.> > Dhanabalan> > --- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:> > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>> Re: Six fold general significator table for k.p.> @gro ups.com> Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 5:25 AM> > > > > > > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.> > we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait for > > group approval, it will be eternity.> > The rules that you have succeeded with , is all > > that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know. > > Best wishes.>

> Satish> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> > wrote:> >> > Dear satish> > > > "Research in actual case studies" > > > > with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a meaning > in research. > > > > Dhanabalan> > > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:> > > > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>> > Re: Six fold general significator table for > k.p.> > @gro ups.com> > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > > > Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do > >

two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an > improvement.> > > > Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he padded > up > > with the Vedic baggage. > > > > Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK > > spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha. You > > really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we in > Kp > > group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no > relevance. > > Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.> > > > If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce > > a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading upon > > sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer all > > such queries, doubts. That he shud have done

this or that is > getting > > to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we are > > smarter than KSK.Are we ??> > > > My simple suggestion, please do carry out research > > in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your > points. > > You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )> > > > Regards,> > > > Satish> > > > @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...> wrote:> > >> > > Dear Dhanabalan> > > > > > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been > > included so that> > > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and added > > articles by> > > the kp followers.> > > > > > Dr Sheetal> > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ ...> > > wrote:> > > > > > > Dear yogesh Rao> > > >> > > > I have no objection if the author of the article also included > in > > that> > > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad. The > > best students> > > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the > > practice> > > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire material > in > > the> > > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.> > > >> > > > Dhanabalan> > > >> > > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>* wrote:> > >

>> > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>> > > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator > table > > for k.p.> > > > @gro ups.com> > > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM> > > >> > > > Dear Dhanabalan,> > > > So what ? !> > > > It doesn't matter so long it has been > > writen by> > > > some of the best students of KSK...> > > > What is troubling you ?> > > > L.Y.Rao.> > > >> > > > > > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >> > > > @gro ups.com> > > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM> > > > Re: Re: Six fold

general significator > table > > for k.p.> > > >> > > > Dear sakthivel> > > >> > > > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by > Mr.KSK. > > For that> > > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion is > > about the> > > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it is > > boring, do not> > > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.> > > >> > > > Dhanabalan> > > >> > > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ > > >*wrote:> > > >> > > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >> > > > Re: Six fold general significator table >

for > > k.p.> > > > @gro ups.com> > > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM> > > >> > > > Hey Dhanapalan,> > > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that stirs > > unnecessary> > > > controversies without providing any thing constructive> > > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966 edition > of > > kp reader> > > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.> > > > S Murughan> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > .> > > >> > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > > wrote:> > > > >> > > > > Dear tw853> >

> > >> > > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers like > > Mr.Raichur,> > > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.> > > > >> > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > >> > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > >> > > > > tw853 tw853@> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator table > > for k.p.> > > > > @gro ups.com> > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by

Guruji > > KSK as the> > > > significator by referring the 3 examples with "or sub" and not > > taking 13> > > > examples "without sub" in the same manner, nothing different, > in > > the same> > > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation is > > suspicious.> > > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the following > > Guruji KSK's> > > > finding:> > > > > "The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature of > > the result> > > > and the sub is a "deciding factor" whether the matter is > > favorable or not."> > > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R >

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > > wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > Dear tw853> > > > > >> > > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-320 of > > volume II> > > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave predictions > > without> > > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub than > with > > sub, so we> > > > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless. > > Principle is> > > > important. Number is not important.> > > > > >> > > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no computer, > so > > Mr.KSK> > > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have > > calculated all

the> > > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what we > > are having> > > > now..> > > > > >> > > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.> > > > > >> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > >> > > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:> > > > > >> > > > > > tw853 tw853@> > > > > > Re: Six fold general significator > table > > for k.p.> > > > > > @gro ups.com> > > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>

> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 & 274 > and > > a write up> > > > in pp 319-20 "with the sub" but whithout consideration of the > > following 13> > > > examples "without sub" in the standard A to E order of KP > > significaton is> > > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti Padhdhati, > > Vol. 2, 1966,> > > > Sagar Publications itself.> > > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;> > > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;> > > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;> > > > > > 4) p 139 for 4;> > > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;> > > > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;> > > > > > 7) p 256 for

2,5,11;> > > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;> > > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;> > > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;> > > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;> > > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 & > > > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses> > > > > >> > > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>> > > > wrote:> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Dear members> > > > > > >> > > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of > > Krishnamoorthy> > > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966, > Mr.KSK > > has> > > >

considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and the > > planets in> > > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This > point > > has been> > > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing four > > fold general> > > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as below > to > > get better> > > > results.> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > House No> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Planets> > > > > > > In the> > > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > >

occupants> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Planets> > > > > > > In the> > > > > > > Star of> > > > > > > occupants> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Occupants in the house> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Planets> > > > > > > In the> > > > > > > Sub of> > > > > > > House lord> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Planets> > > > > > > In the> > > > > > > Star of> > > > > > > House lord> > > > > > >> > > > > > > House lord> > > > > > >> > > >

> > >> > > > > > > I> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > II> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >

>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > III> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > IV> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >

>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > V> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>

> > > > > > VI> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > VII> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >

> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > VIII> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > IX> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >

> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > X> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >

XI> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > XII> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>

> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards> > > > > > > R.Dhanabalan> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > ------------ --------- ---------> > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India > > Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge > r_1/*http: //in.messe> > nger./ ?wm=n/>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >>

>>

[Guest guest]

One more time to explain the title " Jyothida Marthand " and Gold

Medal are for the outstanding service in steller astrology by giving

lectures to the public and they were honoured on behalf of the

public, not for the correctness in prediction or for the KP 2

volumes as a thesis!

 

In KP there is no sub's star theory, only the sub theory, nothing

else.

 

 

 

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan

wrote:

>

> Dear Satish

>  

> There is no need for me to prove my formula, since Mr.KSK has

already proved. He got the title " Jyothida Marthand " and Gold Medal

for the formula. Research was already done by Mr.KSK in the year

1965 itself.

>  

> Is there any research for the sub's star theory by Mr.KSK.

>  

> Dhanabalan

>

> --- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942 wrote:

>

> R Satish <rsatish1942

> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

>

> Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 2:19 PM

>

Dear Dhanabalan,

>

> Accepted what you say is 100% true,sub theory is

> what most people follow.

>

> As suggested to you earlier, please give your

> hypothesis, a working formula, do the exercise on 100 horoscopes

at

> least. The results will exemplify your findings.

>

> I am sure the entire group is waiting for your

> research findings. Sermonizing time is over.

>

> Please ACT NOW.

>

> Best wishes.

>

> Regards,

>

> Satish

>

> @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satish

> >  

> > According to me, k.p. system is 100% vedic. Most of the rules

> in the  original volumes(1966) are go in line with vedic, so it is

> correct.

> >  

> > Sub's star theory is considerd in the present k.p. Readers which

I

> do not agree. 

> >  

> > According to me sub is a sub only. Sub is not a planet.

> >  

> >  Dhanabalan

> >

> > --- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>

> > Re: Six fold general significator table

for

> k.p.

> > @gro ups.com

> > Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 5:25 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Dhanabalan,

> >

> > Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.

> >

> > we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait

for

> >

> > group approval, it will be eternity.

> >

> > The rules that you have succeeded with , is all

> >

> > that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know.

> >

> > Best wishes.

> >

> > Satish

> >

> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear satish

> > >  

> > > " Research in actual case studies "

> > >

> > > with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a

> meaning

> > in research.

> > >  

> > > Dhanabalan

> > >

> > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>

> > > Re: Six fold general significator table

for

> > k.p.

> > > @gro ups.com

> > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Dhanabalan,

> > >

> > > Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do

> > > two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an

> > improvement.

> > >

> > > Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he

padded

> > up

> > > with the Vedic baggage.

> > >

> > > Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK

> > > spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja

dosha.

> You

> > > really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet

we

> in

> > Kp

> > > group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no

> > relevance.

> > > Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.

> > >

> > > If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce

> > > a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading

upon

> > > sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to

answer

> all

> > > such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is

> > getting

> > > to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove

we

> are

> > > smarter than KSK.Are we ??

> > >

> > > My simple suggestion, please do carry out research

> > > in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your

> > points.

> > > You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Satish

> > >

> > > @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Dhanabalan

> > > >

> > > > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been

> > > included so that

> > > > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and

added

> > > articles by

> > > > the kp followers.

> > > >

> > > > Dr Sheetal

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear yogesh Rao

> > > > >

> > > > > I have no objection if the author of the article also

> included

> > in

> > > that

> > > > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad.

The

> > > best students

> > > > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the

> > > practice

> > > > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire

> material

> > in

> > > the

> > > > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dhanabalan

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>*

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>

> > > > > Re: Re: Six fold general

significator

> > table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Dhanabalan,

> > > > > So what ? !

> > > > > It doesn't matter so long it has been

> > > writen by

> > > > > some of the best students of KSK...

> > > > > What is troubling you ?

> > > > > L.Y.Rao.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM

> > > > > Re: Re: Six fold general

significator

> > table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear sakthivel

> > > > >

> > > > > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by

> > Mr.KSK.

> > > For that

> > > > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion

is

> > > about the

> > > > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it

is

> > > boring, do not

> > > > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dhanabalan

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan

<sakthivel_murughan @

> > > >*wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >

> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

table

> > for

> > > k.p.

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Hey Dhanapalan,

> > > > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that

> stirs

> > > unnecessary

> > > > > controversies without providing any thing constructive

> > > > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966

edition

> > of

> > > kp reader

> > > > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

> > > > > S Murughan

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > .

> > > > >

> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear tw853

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers

like

> > > Mr.Raichur,

> > > > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

> table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by

> Guruji

> > > KSK as the

> > > > > significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and

> not

> > > taking 13

> > > > > examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing

different,

> > in

> > > the same

> > > > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation

is

> > > suspicious.

> > > > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the

following

> > > Guruji KSK's

> > > > > finding:

> > > > > > " The planet is the source, constellation indicates

nature

> of

> > > the result

> > > > > and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is

> > > favorable or not. "

> > > > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear tw853

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-

320

> of

> > > volume II

> > > > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave

> predictions

> > > without

> > > > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub

than

> > with

> > > sub, so we

> > > > > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless.

> > > Principle is

> > > > > important. Number is not important.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no

> computer,

> > so

> > > Mr.KSK

> > > > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have

> > > calculated all the

> > > > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility

what

> we

> > > are having

> > > > > now..

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > > > > Re: Six fold general

significator

> > table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 &

274

> > and

> > > a write up

> > > > > in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of

the

> > > following 13

> > > > > examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order of KP

> > > significaton is

> > > > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti

Padhdhati,

> > > Vol. 2, 1966,

> > > > > Sagar Publications itself.

> > > > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;

> > > > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;

> > > > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;

> > > > > > > 4) p 139 for 4;

> > > > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

> > > > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 &

> > > > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear members

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of

> > > Krishnamoorthy

> > > > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966,

> > Mr.KSK

> > > has

> > > > > considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants

and

> the

> > > planets in

> > > > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This

> > point

> > > has been

> > > > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing

four

> > > fold general

> > > > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as

below

> > to

> > > get better

> > > > > results.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > House No

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > > > occupants

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > > > occupants

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Occupants in the house

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > II

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > III

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > IV

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > V

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > VI

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > VII

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > VIII

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > IX

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > X

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > XI

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > XII

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ------------ --------- ---------

> > > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India

> > > Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge

> > r_1/*http: //in.messe

> > > nger./ ?wm=n/>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dhanabalan,

 

Every astrologer is in his own right to apply

modify or improve on the existing hypothesis. The success lies in

CONSISTANCY. This is the area where most of us fail.

 

More than theories it is the application that is

important.One way of looking at it ,KSK 's theories have not been

comprehensively understood,hence the mutations. Alternatively,

commercial interests prevailor else modifications were reqd.

 

In TN itself there are so many so called Gurus of

KP following 'Aberrations' of the original concept. Can you stop them?

 

Time is for action, please estabilish that KSK's

concepts are valid in all conditions for all times. Give live cases

of recent origin in adequate number. Otherwise, all these discussions

are Hot Air. We can discuss till doomsday or ad nauseam.

 

Regards,

 

Satish

 

 

 

 

, Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan

wrote:

>

> Dear Satish

>  

> There is no need for me to prove my formula, since Mr.KSK has

already proved. He got the title " Jyothida Marthand " and Gold Medal

for the formula. Research was already done by Mr.KSK in the year 1965

itself.

>  

> Is there any research for the sub's star theory by Mr.KSK.

>  

> Dhanabalan

>

> --- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942 wrote:

>

> R Satish <rsatish1942

> Re: Six fold general significator table for

k.p.

>

> Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 2:19 PM

>

Dear Dhanabalan,

>

> Accepted what you say is 100% true,sub theory is

> what most people follow.

>

> As suggested to you earlier, please give your

> hypothesis, a working formula, do the exercise on 100 horoscopes at

> least. The results will exemplify your findings.

>

> I am sure the entire group is waiting for your

> research findings. Sermonizing time is over.

>

> Please ACT NOW.

>

> Best wishes.

>

> Regards,

>

> Satish

>

> @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

<r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Satish

> >  

> > According to me, k.p. system is 100% vedic. Most of the rules

> in the  original volumes(1966) are go in line with vedic, so it is

> correct.

> >  

> > Sub's star theory is considerd in the present k.p. Readers which

I

> do not agree. 

> >  

> > According to me sub is a sub only. Sub is not a planet.

> >  

> >  Dhanabalan

> >

> > --- On Wed, 8/6/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>

> > Re: Six fold general significator table for

> k.p.

> > @gro ups.com

> > Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 5:25 AM

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Dhanabalan,

> >

> > Please formulate simple rules which YOU FOLLOW.

> >

> > we will tag along and understand your philosophy. If you wait for

> >

> > group approval, it will be eternity.

> >

> > The rules that you have succeeded with , is all

> >

> > that is important.It is immaterial, what we think or know.

> >

> > Best wishes.

> >

> > Satish

> >

> > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear satish

> > >  

> > > " Research in actual case studies "

> > >

> > > with what rules. Rules must be clear, then only there is a

> meaning

> > in research.

> > >  

> > > Dhanabalan

> > >

> > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...> wrote:

> > >

> > > R Satish <rsatish1942@ ...>

> > > Re: Six fold general significator table

for

> > k.p.

> > > @gro ups.com

> > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 2:36 PM

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Dear Dhanabalan,

> > >

> > > Vedic concepts have been introduced in KP books to do

> > > two things,show the vedic philosophy and 2, how KP is an

> > improvement.

> > >

> > > Another way is cynical, KSK wanted to sell his books,so he

padded

> > up

> > > with the Vedic baggage.

> > >

> > > Take the Kuja Dosha principle in 4th Reader on marriages, KSK

> > > spends 60 pages to explain about Dasa Poruthams and Kuja dosha.

> You

> > > really wonder if he was really espousing these concepts. Yet we

> in

> > Kp

> > > group group shout from the roof top that Kuja dosha has no

> > relevance.

> > > Research as per files indicate the non validity of Kuja Dosha.

> > >

> > > If this was so, KSK had no' business' to introduce

> > > a concept he was fighting against.We are therefore treading

upon

> > > sensitive areas and upsetting people.KSK is not there to answer

> all

> > > such queries, doubts. That he shud have done this or that is

> > getting

> > > to be wise after the event.Unless of course we want to prove we

> are

> > > smarter than KSK.Are we ??

> > >

> > > My simple suggestion, please do carry out research

> > > in actual case studies,coming up in the group,and prove your

> > points.

> > > You will be soon acclaimed as a KP messsiah.(no cynicism )

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > >

> > > Satish

> > >

> > > @gro ups.com, Sheetal <ratnamalag@ ...>

> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Dhanabalan

> > > >

> > > > I agree with your point that authors' name should have been

> > > included so that

> > > > readers must know the original articles by great KSK and

added

> > > articles by

> > > > the kp followers.

> > > >

> > > > Dr Sheetal

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Dhanabalan R

> <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > Dear yogesh Rao

> > > > >

> > > > > I have no objection if the author of the article also

> included

> > in

> > > that

> > > > > article. The identity of the author should be revealenad.

The

> > > best students

> > > > > of Mr.KSK are not Mr.KSK. Revealing the author name is the

> > > practice

> > > > > everywhere. Otherwise, all will think that the entire

> material

> > in

> > > the

> > > > > k.p.Readers are belong to Mr.KSK.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dhanabalan

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On *Tue, 8/5/08, Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>*

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Yogesh Rao Lajmi <lyrastro1@ ..>

> > > > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator

> > table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:08 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear Dhanabalan,

> > > > > So what ? !

> > > > > It doesn't matter so long it has been

> > > writen by

> > > > > some of the best students of KSK...

> > > > > What is troubling you ?

> > > > > L.Y.Rao.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Dhanabalan R <r.dhanabalan@ >

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 10:52:16 AM

> > > > > Re: Re: Six fold general significator

> > table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dear sakthivel

> > > > >

> > > > > My contention is that the k.p.Readers were not written by

> > Mr.KSK.

> > > For that

> > > > > I gave many evidence and it is continuing. The discussion

is

> > > about the

> > > > > k.p.system and not to test any individual. If you feel it

is

> > > boring, do not

> > > > > go through this, you can do something useful to you.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dhanabalan

> > > > >

> > > > > --- On *Mon, 8/4/08, sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan

@

> > > >*wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > sakthivel_murughan <sakthivel_murughan @ >

> > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

table

> > for

> > > k.p.

> > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > Monday, August 4, 2008, 4:36 AM

> > > > >

> > > > > Hey Dhanapalan,

> > > > > Boring , It is getting monotonous reading you mails that

> stirs

> > > unnecessary

> > > > > controversies without providing any thing constructive

> > > > > If you believe extracting significators based on 1966

edition

> > of

> > > kp reader

> > > > > published by sagar publication, prove it with examples.

> > > > > S Murughan

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > .

> > > > >

> > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Dear tw853

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I want to know the opinion of other senior astrologers

like

> > > Mr.Raichur,

> > > > > Sunil Gondhalekar, etc. about this controversy.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > >

> > > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

> table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 11:26 PM

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is absolutely wrong to say that the sub is taken by

> Guruji

> > > KSK as the

> > > > > significator by referring the 3 examples with " or sub " and

> not

> > > taking 13

> > > > > examples " without sub " in the same manner, nothing

different,

> > in

> > > the same

> > > > > KP 2 Volumes and the intention of such biased presentation

is

> > > suspicious.

> > > > > > In addition, such saying is inconsistent with the

following

> > > Guruji KSK's

> > > > > finding:

> > > > > > " The planet is the source, constellation indicates nature

> of

> > > the result

> > > > > and the sub is a " deciding factor " whether the matter is

> > > favorable or not. "

> > > > > > - Krishnamurti Padhdhati, Vol. 2, p 41

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Dear tw853

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 1) Mr.KSK gave 3 examples in pages 113-114, 274, 318-

320

> of

> > > volume II

> > > > > taking sub as signification. In 13 examples he gave

> predictions

> > > without

> > > > > taking sub. He gave more number of examples without sub

than

> > with

> > > sub, so we

> > > > > need not consider the sub as significator is meaningless.

> > > Principle is

> > > > > important. Number is not important.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > 2) In those days, there was no calculator and no

> computer,

> > so

> > > Mr.KSK

> > > > > indicated the principle through 3 examples. He would have

> > > calculated all the

> > > > > examples with sub signification if he had the facility what

> we

> > > are having

> > > > > now..

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So I request you to think in the other way.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > --- On Sun, 8/3/08, tw853 tw853@ wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > tw853 tw853@

> > > > > > > Re: Six fold general significator

> > table

> > > for k.p.

> > > > > > > @gro ups.com

> > > > > > > Sunday, August 3, 2008, 4:47 AM

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The conclusion based on the 2 examples in pp 113-4 &

274

> > and

> > > a write up

> > > > > in pp 319-20 " with the sub " but whithout consideration of

the

> > > following 13

> > > > > examples " without sub " in the standard A to E order of KP

> > > significaton is

> > > > > biased, i.e. 3 against 13 in the same Krishnamurti

Padhdhati,

> > > Vol. 2, 1966,

> > > > > Sagar Publications itself.

> > > > > > > 1) p 57 for Badhaka house;

> > > > > > > 2) p 74 for 2,6,10,11 houses;

> > > > > > > 3) p 118 for 12,7,5,8;

> > > > > > > 4) p 139 for 4;

> > > > > > > 5) p 236 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > > > 6) p 244 for 2,7,11;

> > > > > > > 7) p 256 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > > > 8) p 269 for 2,5,11;

> > > > > > > 9) pp 276-7 for 4 & 3;

> > > > > > > 10) p 301 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > > > 11) p 303 for 2,6,10;

> > > > > > > 12) p 308 for 2,6,10 &

> > > > > > > 13) p 333 for 2,3,6,10 houses

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > @gro ups.com, Dhanabalan R

> > > <r.dhanabalan@ ...>

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Dear members

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > With reference to pages 113,114,274, 319,320 of

> > > Krishnamoorthy

> > > > > Paddhati volume II of sagar publication in the year 1966,

> > Mr.KSK

> > > has

> > > > > considered the planets in the star and sub of occupants and

> the

> > > planets in

> > > > > the star and sub of the house lords as significators. This

> > point

> > > has been

> > > > > supressed in the k..p.Reader III, V and VI. The existing

four

> > > fold general

> > > > > significator table has to be converted into six fold as

below

> > to

> > > get better

> > > > > results.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > House No

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > > > occupants

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > > > occupants

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Occupants in the house

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Sub of

> > > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Planets

> > > > > > > > In the

> > > > > > > > Star of

> > > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > House lord

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > II

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > III

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > IV

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > V

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > VI

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > VII

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > VIII

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > IX

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > X

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > XI

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > XII

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Regards

> > > > > > > > R.Dhanabalan

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ------------ --------- ---------

> > > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India

> > > Messenger.<http://in.rd. / tagline_messenge

> > r_1/*http: //in.messe

> > > nger./ ?wm=n/>

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>