The idea of “co-lordship” assigned to Rahu and Ketu is not classical and is indeed considered a farce by scholars of traditional Jyotiṣa.
Here is the clean reasoning:
1. Classical texts explicitly deny lordship to Rahu and
Ketu
No Bṛhat Parāśara Horā Śāstra, Sarāvalī, Jātaka
Pārijāta, Phaladīpikā, Bṛhat Jātaka, Jaimini Sutras,
or any foundational classical authority assigns sign lordship to
Rahu or Ketu.
Parāśara says:
“राहुकेतू छाया ग्रहौ — Rahu and Ketu are shadow
planets.”
They have no sign of their own.
They take the qualities of the planet they conjoin
and the lord of the sign they occupy.
This is repeated in Saravali and later works:
Rahu–Ketu = signless, dependent, shadowy, mimicking planets.
2. Modern “co-lordship” is a 20th-century invention
Assigning co-lordship is a modern, Western-inspired
attempt to map nodes to Uranus/Neptune/Pluto analogues.
Some modern astrologers (mostly after 1960) proclaimed:
Rahu co-lords Aquarius
Ketu co-lords Scorpio
But this has no scriptural basis.
It was created simply because:
Aquarius is “airy” → Rahu is “airy”
Scorpio is “occult, transformative” → Ketu is “moksha-oriented”
This is symbolic analogy, not classical Jyotiṣa.
3. Why co-lordship is conceptually flawed
3.1 Rahu and Ketu have no physical body
The ancient logic is clear:
Sign lordship requires an astronomical graha with a body, motion, and
influence.
Nodes are mathematical points.
3.2 Their behavior contradicts rulership principles
They always move retrograde, unlike any sign lord.
They mimic the lord/sign they occupy instead of expressing
any inherent rulership.
Thus the whole concept of “ownership” is incompatible with
their nature.
4. The correct classical framework
Rahu and Ketu give results through:
Sign lord
Conjunct planet
Aspected planet
Their dispositor strength
This is entirely scriptural and logically consistent.
5. Why co-lordship harms interpretation
Because it leads to:
False exaltation/debilitation assumptions
Wrong yogas
Wrong career and life predictions
Misleading dasha interpretations
A shadow entity cannot be a bhava, sign, or rashi lord.
Its power is entirely parasitic.
Summary
Co-lordship of Rahu/Ketu is NOT classical, NOT Parāśaric,
NOT Jaimini, and NOT supported by any authoritative Sanskrit source.
It is a modern symbolic invention and is astrologically unsound.
