Guest guest Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Dear Seniors, Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to the rays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators?. Kindly advise your comments! Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Dear Adith ji, Combustion has not been dealt in KP System. We find various concepts in classical astrology which talks about the power of planets e.g. combustion, exaltation, debilitation, vargottama, planets in war, graha bala, ashtakvarga, graha avastha etc. Shri KSK discarded (or didn't use) these methods probably to simplify astrology and give us a systematic approach for analysing a chart. So like other above stated concepts, combustion is not having any place in KP System. For the astrologer who mix KP with classical astrology, combustion, like exaltation and debilitation, relates to the power of a planet and not the signification of the planet. A planet signifying certain houses tells us that the planet will give result of those houses. If we relate the concept of combustion with KP System, a degree of result will decrease or increase but doesn't change viz-a-viz signification of houses by that planet. So a planet in combustion may not be able to give result of a house that prominently in comparison to a planet which is free from combustion. Though we should be very careful in mixing KP with classical astrology, because if we are using concepts like combustion, we should also use various other above mentioned concepts. Whatever method we user, we should use in totality. So, just to give a clear answer to the question, in my opinion, the planet in combustion should NOT be ignored from the significators. Thanks & Regards,Punit Pandey On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means " When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration. " . It is not a definition but the meaning. In " Horary Astrology " by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer. Thanks AdithOn Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Dear Pundit ji,Thank you so much for your explanation.RegardsAdithOn Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Punit Pandey <punitp wrote: Dear Adith ji, Combustion has not been dealt in KP System. We find various concepts in classical astrology which talks about the power of planets e.g. combustion, exaltation, debilitation, vargottama, planets in war, graha bala, ashtakvarga, graha avastha etc. Shri KSK discarded (or didn't use) these methods probably to simplify astrology and give us a systematic approach for analysing a chart. So like other above stated concepts, combustion is not having any place in KP System. For the astrologer who mix KP with classical astrology, combustion, like exaltation and debilitation, relates to the power of a planet and not the signification of the planet. A planet signifying certain houses tells us that the planet will give result of those houses. If we relate the concept of combustion with KP System, a degree of result will decrease or increase but doesn't change viz-a-viz signification of houses by that planet. So a planet in combustion may not be able to give result of a house that prominently in comparison to a planet which is free from combustion. Though we should be very careful in mixing KP with classical astrology, because if we are using concepts like combustion, we should also use various other above mentioned concepts. Whatever method we user, we should use in totality. So, just to give a clear answer to the question, in my opinion, the planet in combustion should NOT be ignored from the significators. Thanks & Regards,Punit Pandey On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 Respected all,Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun.TfykiWith Pranams to all.Padmakar DSent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone EssarLuther Rath Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Adith,In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue.Dr. Luther Rathgkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to SunDear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 Dear All, KP has dealt all in his readers. I like to raise a question. How you will guage the strength of a planet in KP? How will you judge whether a planet is afflicted or not in KP? In KP, Combustion of planets is not left out, association of planets is not left out, Eclipse of planets is not left out... all has its own value in prediction. Prof KSK has dealt every aspect in his readers then and there. We have to dig out them and apply. If the term combustion is not used then the term conjoined is mentioned. Who gains the planet conjoined with Sun or the Sun? I know combustion is different and conjoined is different. My humble opinion is that, We have stopped using KP in only timing the events we have to elaborate how it will happen? What will be the outcome? who gains? who losses? what will the prospects of the matter in future. With Regards, Ramkumar. n Sat, 20/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinathRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Date: Saturday, 20 December, 2008, 8:43 PM Dear Pundit ji,Thank you so much for your explanation.RegardsAdith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Punit Pandey <punitp (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Dear Adith ji, Combustion has not been dealt in KP System. We find various concepts in classical astrology which talks about the power of planets e.g. combustion, exaltation, debilitation, vargottama, planets in war, graha bala, ashtakvarga, graha avastha etc. Shri KSK discarded (or didn't use) these methods probably to simplify astrology and give us a systematic approach for analysing a chart. So like other above stated concepts, combustion is not having any place in KP System. For the astrologer who mix KP with classical astrology, combustion, like exaltation and debilitation, relates to the power of a planet and not the signification of the planet. A planet signifying certain houses tells us that the planet will give result of those houses. If we relate the concept of combustion with KP System, a degree of result will decrease or increase but doesn't change viz-a-viz signification of houses by that planet. So a planet in combustion may not be able to give result of a house that prominently in comparison to a planet which is free from combustion. Though we should be very careful in mixing KP with classical astrology, because if we are using concepts like combustion, we should also use various other above mentioned concepts. Whatever method we user, we should use in totality. So, just to give a clear answer to the question, in my opinion, the planet in combustion should NOT be ignored from the significators. Thanks & Regards,Punit Pandey On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comSaturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 Dear Adith,I will say "Well, if you have read that, stick to it" and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts.RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means" When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration.". It is not a definition but the meaning.In "Horary Astrology" by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer.Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comSaturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2008 Report Share Posted December 21, 2008 Hi sunil,The definition whether what I read is correct or not is not the one in question!here the question was raised on " should we ignore the planet from the significators if it is combust? " regardsAdithOn Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Sunil Sharma <sunilsharma21 wrote: Dear Adith,I will say " Well, if you have read that, stick to it " and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts. RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means " When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration. " . It is not a definition but the meaning. In " Horary Astrology " by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer. Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 The question of combustion of planets, nor of strength of planets, is not at all revent in KP raichur anant mumbai--- On Sun, 21/12/08, muthuram kumar <muthuramkmr wrote: muthuram kumar <muthuramkmrRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Cc: "ramkumar" <ramkumaravmSunday, 21 December, 2008, 3:03 PM Dear All, KP has dealt all in his readers. I like to raise a question. How you will guage the strength of a planet in KP? How will you judge whether a planet is afflicted or not in KP? In KP, Combustion of planets is not left out, association of planets is not left out, Eclipse of planets is not left out... all has its own value in prediction. Prof KSK has dealt every aspect in his readers then and there. We have to dig out them and apply. If the term combustion is not used then the term conjoined is mentioned. Who gains the planet conjoined with Sun or the Sun? I know combustion is different and conjoined is different. My humble opinion is that, We have stopped using KP in only timing the events we have to elaborate how it will happen? What will be the outcome? who gains? who losses? what will the prospects of the matter in future. With Regards, Ramkumar. n Sat, 20/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinathRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Date: Saturday, 20 December, 2008, 8:43 PM Dear Pundit ji,Thank you so much for your explanation.RegardsAdith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Punit Pandey <punitp (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Dear Adith ji, Combustion has not been dealt in KP System. We find various concepts in classical astrology which talks about the power of planets e.g. combustion, exaltation, debilitation, vargottama, planets in war, graha bala, ashtakvarga, graha avastha etc. Shri KSK discarded (or didn't use) these methods probably to simplify astrology and give us a systematic approach for analysing a chart. So like other above stated concepts, combustion is not having any place in KP System. For the astrologer who mix KP with classical astrology, combustion, like exaltation and debilitation, relates to the power of a planet and not the signification of the planet. A planet signifying certain houses tells us that the planet will give result of those houses. If we relate the concept of combustion with KP System, a degree of result will decrease or increase but doesn't change viz-a-viz signification of houses by that planet. So a planet in combustion may not be able to give result of a house that prominently in comparison to a planet which is free from combustion. Though we should be very careful in mixing KP with classical astrology, because if we are using concepts like combustion, we should also use various other above mentioned concepts. Whatever method we user, we should use in totality. So, just to give a clear answer to the question, in my opinion, the planet in combustion should NOT be ignored from the significators. Thanks & Regards,Punit Pandey On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comSaturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname. Sign up now! Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 NO NO. IT IS STILL THE SIGNIFICATOR IN KP raichur anant mumbai--- On Sun, 21/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinathRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Date: Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 10:39 PM Hi sunil,The definition whether what I read is correct or not is not the one in question!here the question was raised on" should we ignore the planet from the significators if it is combust?"regardsAdith On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Sunil Sharma <sunilsharma21 wrote: Dear Adith,I will say "Well, if you have read that, stick to it" and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts.RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means" When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration.". It is not a definition but the meaning.In "Horary Astrology" by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer.Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Dear Adith, Please note down the statement of Raichurjee for future guidance. On the otherhand I want to understand what actually 'Combustion" in Traditional astrology means. Is it just conjunction with Sun with in the prescribed proximity or some thing more? Dr. Luther Rath. Raichur-a-r <raichurar ; adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinathMonday, December 22, 2008 11:17:11 AMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun NO NO. IT IS STILL THE SIGNIFICATOR IN KP raichur anant mumbai--- On Sun, 21/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun@gro ups.comSunday, 21 December, 2008, 10:39 PM Hi sunil,The definition whether what I read is correct or not is not the one in question!here the question was raised on" should we ignore the planet from the significators if it is combust?"regardsAdith On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Sunil Sharma <sunilsharma21@ > wrote: Dear Adith,I will say "Well, if you have read that, stick to it" and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts.RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> @gro ups.comSaturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means" When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration. ". It is not a definition but the meaning.In "Horary Astrology" by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer.Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Dear Raichr ji and Luther Ji,Thank you so much for your replies.I do understand that this not relevant to KP rules !Also Combust means, it is equal how we take Moon (New Moon) when it is closer to Sun, it becomes Combust ! Likewise , in western and our Vedic Astrology, they take other planets also equal to Moon when they are traveling in the close proximities..Thanks and RegardsAdith On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Dear Adith, Please note down the statement of Raichurjee for future guidance. On the otherhand I want to understand what actually 'Combustion " in Traditional astrology means. Is it just conjunction with Sun with in the prescribed proximity or some thing more? Dr. Luther Rath. Raichur-a-r <raichurar ; adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Monday, December 22, 2008 11:17:11 AMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun NO NO. IT IS STILL THE SIGNIFICATOR IN KP raichur anant mumbai--- On Sun, 21/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun @gro ups.comSunday, 21 December, 2008, 10:39 PM Hi sunil,The definition whether what I read is correct or not is not the one in question!here the question was raised on " should we ignore the planet from the significators if it is combust? " regardsAdith On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Sunil Sharma <sunilsharma21@ > wrote: Dear Adith,I will say " Well, if you have read that, stick to it " and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts. RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> @gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means " When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration. " . It is not a definition but the meaning. In " Horary Astrology " by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer. Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Dear Adith, You are very very right. The example of Moon shows the correct direction. New Moon is said to be combust. Vadic Astrology also mentions about combustion of other planets. When a planet occupies the point of arc that is occupied by Moon on a New-Moon day, the planet can be asumed as combust. Is that sufficient? Dr. Luther Rath. adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 6:27:42 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Raichr ji and Luther Ji,Thank you so much for your replies.I do understand that this not relevant to KP rules !Also Combust means, it is equal how we take Moon (New Moon) when it is closer to Sun, it becomes Combust ! Likewise , in western and our Vedic Astrology, they take other planets also equal to Moon when they are traveling in the close proximities. .Thanks and RegardsAdith On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, Please note down the statement of Raichurjee for future guidance. On the otherhand I want to understand what actually 'Combustion" in Traditional astrology means. Is it just conjunction with Sun with in the prescribed proximity or some thing more? Dr. Luther Rath. Raichur-a-r <raichurar >@gro ups.com; adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>Monday, December 22, 2008 11:17:11 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun NO NO. IT IS STILL THE SIGNIFICATOR IN KP raichur anant mumbai--- On Sun, 21/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun@gro ups.com Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 10:39 PM Hi sunil,The definition whether what I read is correct or not is not the one in question!here the question was raised on" should we ignore the planet from the significators if it is combust?"regardsAdith On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Sunil Sharma <sunilsharma21@ > wrote: Dear Adith,I will say "Well, if you have read that, stick to it" and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts.RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> @gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means" When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration. ". It is not a definition but the meaning.In "Horary Astrology" by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer.Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Dear Sir,You Mean to say that when a planet is in the arc of Moon near the Sun is to be assuemed as " Combust? " , Then it will happen every month in Transit! But in Horary, how it has to be represented? I hope as we come to a note that as per KP, combust does not play a role, then we need not much bother about this now..hope so.. what is your view on this?RegardsAdithOn Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Dear Adith, You are very very right. The example of Moon shows the correct direction. New Moon is said to be combust. Vadic Astrology also mentions about combustion of other planets. When a planet occupies the point of arc that is occupied by Moon on a New-Moon day, the planet can be asumed as combust. Is that sufficient? Dr. Luther Rath. adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Monday, December 22, 2008 6:27:42 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Raichr ji and Luther Ji,Thank you so much for your replies.I do understand that this not relevant to KP rules !Also Combust means, it is equal how we take Moon (New Moon) when it is closer to Sun, it becomes Combust ! Likewise , in western and our Vedic Astrology, they take other planets also equal to Moon when they are traveling in the close proximities. .Thanks and RegardsAdith On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, Please note down the statement of Raichurjee for future guidance. On the otherhand I want to understand what actually 'Combustion " in Traditional astrology means. Is it just conjunction with Sun with in the prescribed proximity or some thing more? Dr. Luther Rath. Raichur-a-r <raichurar >@gro ups.com; adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> Monday, December 22, 2008 11:17:11 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun NO NO. IT IS STILL THE SIGNIFICATOR IN KP raichur anant mumbai--- On Sun, 21/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun@gro ups.com Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 10:39 PM Hi sunil,The definition whether what I read is correct or not is not the one in question!here the question was raised on " should we ignore the planet from the significators if it is combust? " regardsAdith On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Sunil Sharma <sunilsharma21@ > wrote: Dear Adith,I will say " Well, if you have read that, stick to it " and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts. RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> @gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means " When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration. " . It is not a definition but the meaning. In " Horary Astrology " by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer. Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Rightly dear Adith, Every month there is a New-Moon and the so called 'Combustion'. No one can deny that we experience the effect of a New-Moon and a Full-Moon in an cyclic order. This also relates to the menstrual cycle of women. It is also believed it also affects the mental diseases like Psychosis and Epilepsy etc. The effect of Moon is definitely non-debatable as it is nearest to earth. So why not other planets in such a position shall not influence the lives of people on the Earth as per their nature and portfoleo they hold? Dr. Luther Rath adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 8:47:32 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,You Mean to say that when a planet is in the arc of Moon near the Sun is to be assuemed as "Combust?", Then it will happen every month in Transit! But in Horary, how it has to be represented?I hope as we come to a note that as per KP, combust does not play a role, then we need not much bother about this now..hope so.. what is your view on this?RegardsAdith On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, You are very very right. The example of Moon shows the correct direction. New Moon is said to be combust. Vadic Astrology also mentions about combustion of other planets. When a planet occupies the point of arc that is occupied by Moon on a New-Moon day, the planet can be asumed as combust. Is that sufficient? Dr. Luther Rath. adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comMonday, December 22, 2008 6:27:42 PM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Raichr ji and Luther Ji,Thank you so much for your replies.I do understand that this not relevant to KP rules !Also Combust means, it is equal how we take Moon (New Moon) when it is closer to Sun, it becomes Combust ! Likewise , in western and our Vedic Astrology, they take other planets also equal to Moon when they are traveling in the close proximities. .Thanks and RegardsAdith On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, Please note down the statement of Raichurjee for future guidance. On the otherhand I want to understand what actually 'Combustion" in Traditional astrology means. Is it just conjunction with Sun with in the prescribed proximity or some thing more? Dr. Luther Rath. Raichur-a-r <raichurar >@gro ups.com; adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> Monday, December 22, 2008 11:17:11 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun NO NO. IT IS STILL THE SIGNIFICATOR IN KP raichur anant mumbai--- On Sun, 21/12/08, adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> wrote: adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun@gro ups.com Sunday, 21 December, 2008, 10:39 PM Hi sunil,The definition whether what I read is correct or not is not the one in question!here the question was raised on" should we ignore the planet from the significators if it is combust?"regardsAdith On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Sunil Sharma <sunilsharma21@ > wrote: Dear Adith,I will say "Well, if you have read that, stick to it" and you will not be able to blame me for that. So, please quote reference/s where you have read what and people may be willing to clarify your doubts.RegardsSunil adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> @gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:09:37 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,I have read that Combust means" When a planet is within 8deg30min from Sun, it is considered to be in Combust which forms a detrimental Configuration. ". It is not a definition but the meaning.In "Horary Astrology" by our Guruji Shri KSK, he explained about this . but at the end he has noted that a planet in Combust does not become malefic and does not fail to give the benefits if it has to offer.Thanks Adith On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Get rid of Add-Ons in your email ID. Get yourname@rocketmail .com. Sign up now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Dear Friends, In KP `Eclipse-Eclipsed planet-Results' are well explained in KP Reader VI pp 147-154 and the finding of the Steller Astrological Research Institute, Madaras, is as quoted in Msg#21349. Regards,tw , "Punit Pandey" <punitp wrote:>> Dear Adith ji,> > Combustion has not been dealt in KP System. We find various concepts in> classical astrology which talks about the power of planets e.g. combustion,> exaltation, debilitation, vargottama, planets in war, graha bala,> ashtakvarga, graha avastha etc. Shri KSK discarded (or didn't use) these> methods probably to simplify astrology and give us a systematic approach for> analysing a chart. So like other above stated concepts, combustion is not> having any place in KP System.> > For the astrologer who mix KP with classical astrology, combustion, like> exaltation and debilitation, relates to the power of a planet and not the> signification of the planet. A planet signifying certain houses tells us> that the planet will give result of those houses. If we relate the concept> of combustion with KP System, a degree of result will decrease or increase> but doesn't change viz-a-viz signification of houses by that planet. So a> planet in combustion may not be able to give result of a house that> prominently in comparison to a planet which is free from combustion. Though> we should be very careful in mixing KP with classical astrology, because if> we are using concepts like combustion, we should also use various other> above mentioned concepts. Whatever method we user, we should use in> totality.> > So, just to give a clear answer to the question, in my opinion, the planet> in combustion should NOT be ignored from the significators.> > Thanks & Regards,> > Punit Pandey> > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Luther Rath rathluther wrote:> > > Dear Adith,> > In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from> > the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what> > exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a> > definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue.> > Dr. Luther Rath> >> > ------------------------------> > ** gkadithkasinath gkadithkasinath > *To:* > > *Sent:* Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM> > *Subject:* Planet - Combust due to Sun> >> >> > Dear Seniors,> >> > Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to the> > rays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .> >> > Kindly advise your comments!> >> > Regards> > Adith> >> >> > > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Respected seniors and friends, I suppose, we have left the discussion on combustion half-way. KP has not given importance to combustion in his articles.I do not know in how many cases the occasion arised in his presentations. But he has used Hindu aspects and conjunctions among and between different planets in various charts. Combustion is also a conjunction of course it is with Sun not with others. So where is the objection to consider combustion in our studies.It is sure, a combust planet is not to be dropped from the list of significators for the Bhava where in the planet is deposited. Now I am not clear about the difference between combustion and conjunction with Sun. What I believe is, a planet is combust when it in in conjunction with Sun and lies inbetween the Sun and Earth.. This is posible with Mercury, Venus and the Moon only and not with Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Moon's such position is New-Moon. We do appreciate the effect of the New-Moon and that of Full-Moon. We appreciate the difference. Venus and Mercury unlike the Moon can be on the other side of the Sun in the same degree as well. And perhaps this position of the planets is called conjunction with Sun. Mercury and Venus can be therefore like-Full-Moon when they are away from Sun and they can be like-New-Moon when they are in beyween the Sun and Earth. I am not sure how the seniors digest these my statements. Therefore the effects of these two inferior planets would be like-New-Moon and like-Full-Moon in different phages of revolution. I invite comments from the seniors. With due regards. Dr. Luther Rath 5th Jan. 2009. "padmakar_369" <padmakar_369 Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:26:33 AMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Respected all,Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun.TfykiWith Pranams to all.Padmakar D Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone Essar Luther Rath Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)<@gro ups.com>Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.comSaturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Dear Sir,We take up the planets position and movement only on the view from Earth.Even if the outer planets do not come in between the sun and Earth, when Sun goes close to these planets degree (when we view from Earth), (we could not see them and) they may become combust and they may lose their strength . May be our ancients would have meant that. But in Horary Astrology Reader 6, though he explained in detail, at the end he has said, the do not fail to give their result because of they become Combust. Hope we must analyse with our own interpretation and results analysis. Thanks AdithOn Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Respected seniors and friends, I suppose, we have left the discussion on combustion half-way. KP has not given importance to combustion in his articles.I do not know in how many cases the occasion arised in his presentations. But he has used Hindu aspects and conjunctions among and between different planets in various charts. Combustion is also a conjunction of course it is with Sun not with others. So where is the objection to consider combustion in our studies.It is sure, a combust planet is not to be dropped from the list of significators for the Bhava where in the planet is deposited. Now I am not clear about the difference between combustion and conjunction with Sun. What I believe is, a planet is combust when it in in conjunction with Sun and lies inbetween the Sun and Earth.. This is posible with Mercury, Venus and the Moon only and not with Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Moon's such position is New-Moon. We do appreciate the effect of the New-Moon and that of Full-Moon. We appreciate the difference. Venus and Mercury unlike the Moon can be on the other side of the Sun in the same degree as well. And perhaps this position of the planets is called conjunction with Sun. Mercury and Venus can be therefore like-Full-Moon when they are away from Sun and they can be like-New-Moon when they are in beyween the Sun and Earth. I am not sure how the seniors digest these my statements. Therefore the effects of these two inferior planets would be like-New-Moon and like-Full-Moon in different phages of revolution. I invite comments from the seniors. With due regards. Dr. Luther Rath 5th Jan. 2009. " padmakar_369 " <padmakar_369 Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:26:33 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Respected all,Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun. TfykiWith Pranams to all.Padmakar D Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone Essar Luther Rath Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)<@gro ups.com>Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Thanks so much for your feed-back Dear Adith. All that I stated was my personal. I viewed the planets in a more scientific way. I am not aware whether the Ancients were clear about the revolution of the infirior planets when astrology developed; to the extent that we understand today. I have been waiting for opportunities to find out the effect of those planets posited at two different distances, on opposite sides of Sun but almost at the same degree when viewed from the Earth. I am sure this hypothesis shall not be accepted by majority of astrologers, but it is thought provoking. Thanks again. Dr. Luther Rath. adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Sent: Monday, January 5, 2009 1:49:33 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,We take up the planets position and movement only on the view from Earth.Even if the outer planets do not come in between the sun and Earth, when Sun goes close to these planets degree (when we view from Earth), (we could not see them and) they may become combust and they may lose their strength . May be our ancients would have meant that.But in Horary Astrology Reader 6, though he explained in detail, at the end he has said, the do not fail to give their result because of they become Combust. Hope we must analyse with our own interpretation and results analysis.Thanks Adith On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Respected seniors and friends, I suppose, we have left the discussion on combustion half-way. KP has not given importance to combustion in his articles.I do not know in how many cases the occasion arised in his presentations. But he has used Hindu aspects and conjunctions among and between different planets in various charts. Combustion is also a conjunction of course it is with Sun not with others. So where is the objection to consider combustion in our studies.It is sure, a combust planet is not to be dropped from the list of significators for the Bhava where in the planet is deposited. Now I am not clear about the difference between combustion and conjunction with Sun. What I believe is, a planet is combust when it in in conjunction with Sun and lies inbetween the Sun and Earth.. This is posible with Mercury, Venus and the Moon only and not with Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Moon's such position is New-Moon. We do appreciate the effect of the New-Moon and that of Full-Moon. We appreciate the difference. Venus and Mercury unlike the Moon can be on the other side of the Sun in the same degree as well. And perhaps this position of the planets is called conjunction with Sun. Mercury and Venus can be therefore like-Full-Moon when they are away from Sun and they can be like-New-Moon when they are in beyween the Sun and Earth. I am not sure how the seniors digest these my statements. Therefore the effects of these two inferior planets would be like-New-Moon and like-Full-Moon in different phages of revolution. I invite comments from the seniors. With due regards. Dr. Luther Rath 5th Jan. 2009. "padmakar_369@ " <padmakar_369@ > @gro ups.comSunday, December 21, 2008 2:26:33 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Respected all,Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun.TfykiWith Pranams to all.Padmakar D Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone Essar Luther Rath Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)<@gro ups.com> Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Dear Dr. LutherRath,Thanks.When a planet is not moving in a reverse direction, but when it moves in its orbit and seen from Earth , it gives the illusion as if it moves backwards, sometimes. (eg.,. when we are in a train watching a car which is actually moving forward gives the illusion that it moves backward when the speed of the train is fast) . But we take as if they are in Retrograde and results also differ . If that is so, when a planet is near Sun either in the front or behind, but because of Sun's rays, that planet 's rays may not reach Earth ! Because the planet on either case may not be seen from earth also. This may be the reason behind ! Its is my thought! BUT OUR GURUJI KSK SAID IN HIS STATEMENT THOSE PLANETS IN COMBUST DO NOT FAIL TO GIVE THEIR RESULTS! HENCE WE TOO FOLLOW HIS STATEMENT.May be in future on our own experience , we may come up with some more inputs. RegardsAdithOn Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Thanks so much for your feed-back Dear Adith. All that I stated was my personal. I viewed the planets in a more scientific way. I am not aware whether the Ancients were clear about the revolution of the infirior planets when astrology developed; to the extent that we understand today. I have been waiting for opportunities to find out the effect of those planets posited at two different distances, on opposite sides of Sun but almost at the same degree when viewed from the Earth. I am sure this hypothesis shall not be accepted by majority of astrologers, but it is thought provoking. Thanks again. Dr. Luther Rath. adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Monday, January 5, 2009 1:49:33 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,We take up the planets position and movement only on the view from Earth.Even if the outer planets do not come in between the sun and Earth, when Sun goes close to these planets degree (when we view from Earth), (we could not see them and) they may become combust and they may lose their strength . May be our ancients would have meant that. But in Horary Astrology Reader 6, though he explained in detail, at the end he has said, the do not fail to give their result because of they become Combust. Hope we must analyse with our own interpretation and results analysis. Thanks Adith On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Respected seniors and friends, I suppose, we have left the discussion on combustion half-way. KP has not given importance to combustion in his articles.I do not know in how many cases the occasion arised in his presentations. But he has used Hindu aspects and conjunctions among and between different planets in various charts. Combustion is also a conjunction of course it is with Sun not with others. So where is the objection to consider combustion in our studies.It is sure, a combust planet is not to be dropped from the list of significators for the Bhava where in the planet is deposited. Now I am not clear about the difference between combustion and conjunction with Sun. What I believe is, a planet is combust when it in in conjunction with Sun and lies inbetween the Sun and Earth.. This is posible with Mercury, Venus and the Moon only and not with Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Moon's such position is New-Moon. We do appreciate the effect of the New-Moon and that of Full-Moon. We appreciate the difference. Venus and Mercury unlike the Moon can be on the other side of the Sun in the same degree as well. And perhaps this position of the planets is called conjunction with Sun. Mercury and Venus can be therefore like-Full-Moon when they are away from Sun and they can be like-New-Moon when they are in beyween the Sun and Earth. I am not sure how the seniors digest these my statements. Therefore the effects of these two inferior planets would be like-New-Moon and like-Full-Moon in different phages of revolution. I invite comments from the seniors. With due regards. Dr. Luther Rath 5th Jan. 2009. " padmakar_369@ " <padmakar_369@ > @gro ups.comSunday, December 21, 2008 2:26:33 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Respected all,Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun.Tfyki With Pranams to all.Padmakar D Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone Essar Luther Rath Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)<@gro ups.com> Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Dear all, Rahu and Ketu are actually considered direct because they never change their course of Retrograde motion. Therefore when people like me make a chart manually, we do not write " Rx " in front of Rahu and Ketu, but do write in front of other planets which are retro.because in case of Rahu and Ketu its understood that they are moving in their set path and aligned motion without deviations. In same way, Mercury being always close to the Sun, is in most of the cases( Charts ) , Combust. So combustion actually I do not consider for Mercury. This is my personal view. By " combustion not occuring " I mean the effects which we know are mentioned for a Combust Mercury, may not necessarily manifest in a native, in his behavorioul patterns. Of course technically speaking and as per definition, in both above cases, Rahu Ketu are Retro and Mercury combust. But suppose we take a straight Line horizontally and place 3 points here .. M S E - in this Order where M stands for Mercury, S stands for The Sun, and E stands for the Earth. In this case when Mercury gets combusted , its rays are not going to fall on earth on the native who is born, because The Sun is in between. Then I believe the effects of combustion would be really there. But if the Order is changed to S M E , then though the combustion occurs, yet the rays of the mercury will fall on native and may not allow the negative effects of the combustion to manifest on the native. Now whether this theory holds good or not, I leave it to the seniors to judge. Regards Combustion - when any planet is considered to be in the Heart of the Sun and very benefic, as in " Cazimi " if within 17' of the Sun, then why note expand that principle for The planet Mercury who is always near the Sun, and if not consider Mercury as not well fortified ( as per definition of Cazimi ) , but at least do not consider Mercury as absolute unrewarding or unuseful, when Combust. In the above, I am talking about Natal Charts, but For Horary Charts the principle of Retrogression and Combustion may be taken seperately in application, and also when judging RP's. here the effect of Combustion and retro on the Main significators will certainly delay or deny the event in question. regards, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Dear Adith, Your explanation is quite correct. Sir, I never meant that planets in combustion ever fail to give results. I only wnated to say that the effect of the planet may be different when it is posited either beyound Sun or in between Sun and Earth. In either position the planet gives its result related to the bhava concerned but in a different way as the full-Moon of new-Moon. Only experience shall prove this or other wise. Dr. Luther Rath adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Sent: Monday, January 5, 2009 7:56:05 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Dr. LutherRath,Thanks.When a planet is not moving in a reverse direction, but when it moves in its orbit and seen from Earth , it gives the illusion as if it moves backwards, sometimes. (eg.,. when we are in a train watching a car which is actually moving forward gives the illusion that it moves backward when the speed of the train is fast) . But we take as if they are in Retrograde and results also differ . If that is so, when a planet is near Sun either in the front or behind, but because of Sun's rays, that planet 's rays may not reach Earth ! Because the planet on either case may not be seen from earth also. This may be the reason behind ! Its is my thought!BUT OUR GURUJI KSK SAID IN HIS STATEMENT THOSE PLANETS IN COMBUST DO NOT FAIL TO GIVE THEIR RESULTS! HENCE WE TOO FOLLOW HIS STATEMENT.May be in future on our own experience , we may come up with some more inputs.RegardsAdith On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Thanks so much for your feed-back Dear Adith. All that I stated was my personal. I viewed the planets in a more scientific way. I am not aware whether the Ancients were clear about the revolution of the infirior planets when astrology developed; to the extent that we understand today. I have been waiting for opportunities to find out the effect of those planets posited at two different distances, on opposite sides of Sun but almost at the same degree when viewed from the Earth. I am sure this hypothesis shall not be accepted by majority of astrologers, but it is thought provoking. Thanks again. Dr. Luther Rath. adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> @gro ups..comMonday, January 5, 2009 1:49:33 PM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,We take up the planets position and movement only on the view from Earth.Even if the outer planets do not come in between the sun and Earth, when Sun goes close to these planets degree (when we view from Earth), (we could not see them and) they may become combust and they may lose their strength . May be our ancients would have meant that.But in Horary Astrology Reader 6, though he explained in detail, at the end he has said, the do not fail to give their result because of they become Combust. Hope we must analyse with our own interpretation and results analysis.Thanks Adith On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Respected seniors and friends, I suppose, we have left the discussion on combustion half-way. KP has not given importance to combustion in his articles.I do not know in how many cases the occasion arised in his presentations. But he has used Hindu aspects and conjunctions among and between different planets in various charts. Combustion is also a conjunction of course it is with Sun not with others. So where is the objection to consider combustion in our studies.It is sure, a combust planet is not to be dropped from the list of significators for the Bhava where in the planet is deposited. Now I am not clear about the difference between combustion and conjunction with Sun. What I believe is, a planet is combust when it in in conjunction with Sun and lies inbetween the Sun and Earth.. This is posible with Mercury, Venus and the Moon only and not with Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Moon's such position is New-Moon. We do appreciate the effect of the New-Moon and that of Full-Moon. We appreciate the difference. Venus and Mercury unlike the Moon can be on the other side of the Sun in the same degree as well. And perhaps this position of the planets is called conjunction with Sun. Mercury and Venus can be therefore like-Full-Moon when they are away from Sun and they can be like-New-Moon when they are in beyween the Sun and Earth. I am not sure how the seniors digest these my statements. Therefore the effects of these two inferior planets would be like-New-Moon and like-Full-Moon in different phages of revolution. I invite comments from the seniors. With due regards. Dr. Luther Rath 5th Jan. 2009. "padmakar_369@ " <padmakar_369@ > @gro ups.com Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:26:33 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Respected all,Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun.TfykiWith Pranams to all.Padmakar D Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone Essar Luther Rath Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)<@gro ups.com> Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!RegardsAdith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Dear Dr.Luther Rath,Thanks for your explanation. I understand.As you rightly said only the experience may prove which also may vary between Astrologers!Thanks and RegardsAdith On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: Dear Adith, Your explanation is quite correct. Sir, I never meant that planets in combustion ever fail to give results. I only wnated to say that the effect of the planet may be different when it is posited either beyound Sun or in between Sun and Earth. In either position the planet gives its result related to the bhava concerned but in a different way as the full-Moon of new-Moon. Only experience shall prove this or other wise. Dr. Luther Rath adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath Monday, January 5, 2009 7:56:05 PMRe: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Dr. LutherRath,Thanks.When a planet is not moving in a reverse direction, but when it moves in its orbit and seen from Earth , it gives the illusion as if it moves backwards, sometimes. (eg.,. when we are in a train watching a car which is actually moving forward gives the illusion that it moves backward when the speed of the train is fast) . But we take as if they are in Retrograde and results also differ . If that is so, when a planet is near Sun either in the front or behind, but because of Sun's rays, that planet 's rays may not reach Earth ! Because the planet on either case may not be seen from earth also. This may be the reason behind ! Its is my thought! BUT OUR GURUJI KSK SAID IN HIS STATEMENT THOSE PLANETS IN COMBUST DO NOT FAIL TO GIVE THEIR RESULTS! HENCE WE TOO FOLLOW HIS STATEMENT.May be in future on our own experience , we may come up with some more inputs.RegardsAdith On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Thanks so much for your feed-back Dear Adith. All that I stated was my personal. I viewed the planets in a more scientific way. I am not aware whether the Ancients were clear about the revolution of the infirior planets when astrology developed; to the extent that we understand today. I have been waiting for opportunities to find out the effect of those planets posited at two different distances, on opposite sides of Sun but almost at the same degree when viewed from the Earth. I am sure this hypothesis shall not be accepted by majority of astrologers, but it is thought provoking. Thanks again. Dr. Luther Rath. adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> @gro ups..comMonday, January 5, 2009 1:49:33 PM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Sir,We take up the planets position and movement only on the view from Earth.Even if the outer planets do not come in between the sun and Earth, when Sun goes close to these planets degree (when we view from Earth), (we could not see them and) they may become combust and they may lose their strength . May be our ancients would have meant that. But in Horary Astrology Reader 6, though he explained in detail, at the end he has said, the do not fail to give their result because of they become Combust. Hope we must analyse with our own interpretation and results analysis. Thanks Adith On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: Respected seniors and friends, I suppose, we have left the discussion on combustion half-way. KP has not given importance to combustion in his articles.I do not know in how many cases the occasion arised in his presentations. But he has used Hindu aspects and conjunctions among and between different planets in various charts. Combustion is also a conjunction of course it is with Sun not with others. So where is the objection to consider combustion in our studies.It is sure, a combust planet is not to be dropped from the list of significators for the Bhava where in the planet is deposited. Now I am not clear about the difference between combustion and conjunction with Sun. What I believe is, a planet is combust when it in in conjunction with Sun and lies inbetween the Sun and Earth.. This is posible with Mercury, Venus and the Moon only and not with Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Moon's such position is New-Moon. We do appreciate the effect of the New-Moon and that of Full-Moon. We appreciate the difference. Venus and Mercury unlike the Moon can be on the other side of the Sun in the same degree as well. And perhaps this position of the planets is called conjunction with Sun. Mercury and Venus can be therefore like-Full-Moon when they are away from Sun and they can be like-New-Moon when they are in beyween the Sun and Earth. I am not sure how the seniors digest these my statements. Therefore the effects of these two inferior planets would be like-New-Moon and like-Full-Moon in different phages of revolution. I invite comments from the seniors. With due regards. Dr. Luther Rath 5th Jan. 2009. " padmakar_369@ " <padmakar_369@ > @gro ups.com Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:26:33 AM Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Respected all,Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun.Tfyki With Pranams to all.Padmakar D Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone Essar Luther Rath Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)<@gro ups.com> Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Adith, In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. Dr. Luther Rath gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com>@gro ups.com Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM Planet - Combust due to Sun Dear Seniors,Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to therays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? .Kindly advise your comments!Regards Adith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Dear Members, In our solar system every planet get the energy and light by Sun,every planet have their characteristics and colour.As like we say Mars is Red,Jupiter is Yellow,these all we seen by their reflecting systems.As we know we have seven colours and Sun rays have all The colour.When we see a Green colour it means only Green colour reflected by That Green Object,others are observe by object so we seen only Green. When a planet come near by Sun,he will lost his system or capabilities to reflect the particular colour or it will more brightly reflect his colour?In the light of Sun we can't see or unable to see by any equipment that planet it's not means planet is not exist or his system to reflect the rays failed?In my view no!Planet will bright more,the cosmic rays will have more power than normal but Sun rays will also play his role.Planet will not combust,we should consider Sun along with so called combust planet.No independent result alone by combust planet.Just mixture of Sun+Combust planet. It's my view,our learned members will comment i am on right or wrong track. Thanks, M.S.Bohra , Luther Rath <rathluther wrote: > > Dear Adith, > Your explanation is quite correct. Sir, I never meant that planets in combustion ever fail to give results. I only wnated to say that the effect of the planet may be different when it is posited either beyound Sun or in between Sun and Earth. In either position the planet gives its result related to the bhava concerned but in a different way as the full-Moon of new-Moon. Only experience shall prove this or other wise. > Dr. Luther Rath > > > > > ________________________________ > adith kasinath.g..k <gkadithkasinath > > Monday, January 5, 2009 7:56:05 PM > Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun > > > Dear Dr. LutherRath, > > Thanks. > > When a planet is not moving in a reverse direction, but when it moves in its orbit and seen from Earth , it gives the illusion as if it moves backwards, sometimes.. (eg.,. when we are in a train watching a car which is actually moving forward gives the illusion that it moves backward when the speed of the train is fast) . But we take as if they are in Retrograde and results also differ . > > If that is so, when a planet is near Sun either in the front or behind, but because of Sun's rays, that planet 's rays may not reach Earth ! Because the planet on either case may not be seen from earth also. This may be the reason behind ! Its is my thought! > > BUT OUR GURUJI KSK SAID IN HIS STATEMENT THOSE PLANETS IN COMBUST DO NOT FAIL TO GIVE THEIR RESULTS! HENCE WE TOO FOLLOW HIS STATEMENT. > > May be in future on our own experience , we may come up with some more inputs. > > Regards > Adith > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: > > Thanks so much for your feed-back Dear Adith. > All that I stated was my personal. I viewed the planets in a more scientific way. I am not aware whether the Ancients were clear about the revolution of the infirior planets when astrology developed; to the extent that we understand today. I have been waiting for opportunities to find out the effect of those planets posited at two different distances, on opposite sides of Sun but almost at the same degree when viewed from the Earth. I am sure this hypothesis shall not be accepted by majority of astrologers, but it is thought provoking. > Thanks again. > Dr. Luther Rath. > > > > > ________________________________ > adith kasinath.g.k <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> > > @gro ups.com > Monday, January 5, 2009 1:49:33 PM > > Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun > > > Dear Sir, > > We take up the planets position and movement only on the view from Earth. > > Even if the outer planets do not come in between the sun and Earth, when Sun goes close to these planets degree (when we view from Earth), (we could not see them and) they may become combust and they may lose their strength . May be our ancients would have meant that. > But in Horary Astrology Reader 6, though he explained in detail, at the end he has said, the do not fail to give their result because of they become Combust. > > Hope we must analyse with our own interpretation and results analysis. > > Thanks > Adith > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Luther Rath <rathluther > wrote: > > Respected seniors and friends, > I suppose, we have left the discussion on combustion half-way. KP has not given importance to combustion in his articles.I do not know in how many cases the occasion arised in his presentations. But he has used Hindu aspects and conjunctions among and between different planets in various charts. Combustion is also a conjunction of course it is with Sun not with others. So where is the objection to consider combustion in our studies.It is sure, a combust planet is not to be dropped from the list of significators for the Bhava where in the planet is deposited. Now I am not clear about the difference between combustion and conjunction with Sun. What I believe is, a planet is combust when it in in conjunction with Sun and lies inbetween the Sun and Earth.. This is posible with Mercury, Venus and the Moon only and not with Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Moon's such position is New-Moon. We do appreciate the effect of the New-Moon and that of Full-Moon. We > appreciate the difference. Venus and Mercury unlike the Moon can be on the other side of the Sun in the same degree as well. And perhaps this position of the planets is called conjunction with Sun. Mercury and Venus can be therefore like-Full-Moon when they are away from Sun and they can be like-New-Moon when they are in beyween the Sun and Earth. I am not sure how the seniors digest these my statements. Therefore the effects of these two inferior planets would be like-New-Moon and like-Full-Moon in different phages of revolution. > I invite comments from the seniors. > With due regards. > Dr. Luther Rath > 5th Jan. 2009. > > > > > ________________________________ > " padmakar_369@ " <padmakar_369@ > > > @gro ups.com > > Sunday, December 21, 2008 2:26:33 AM > > Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun > > > > Respected all, > > Combust means any planet within 8 deg 30 Min of the Sun is said to be Combust. It is sonsidered as a detrimental configuration. Some seniors are taking 5 to 3 deg as combust to Sun. > > Tfyki > With Pranams to all. > Padmakar D > > Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone Essar > > ________________________________ > Luther Rath > Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:54:07 -0800 (PST) > <@gro ups.com> > > Re: Planet - Combust due to Sun > > Dear Adith, > In my opinion not all planets conjoined with the Sun are to be ignored from the list of significators. But before that we have to understand what exactly the condition 'combust' means.Kindly let me know if you get a definition of 'Combust'. Let seniors opine on the issue. > Dr. Luther Rath > > > > > ________________________________ > gkadithkasinath <gkadithkasinath@ gmail.com> > @gro ups.com > > Saturday, December 20, 2008 4:49:42 PM > Planet - Combust due to Sun > > > > > Dear Seniors, > > Any planet placed very close to Sun and becomes combust due to the > rays of sun, then that planet is to be ignored from the significators? . > > Kindly advise your comments! > > Regards > Adith > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.