Stuck in a Conundrum!

tsmall

Premium Member
In general, the rising (i.e. the 12th HOUSE!) of heavenly bodies was considered favorable because then the positive characteristics of the gods were at their peak. By contrast, the setting of the same bodies was held to be a bad omen.

Excellent information Carris, and thanks for sharing it. I think that there may be one point here to be understood, in that when using whole sign, which is far older than any quadrant based system, and I believe what the ancients you refer to used, the rising sign was the 1st house, not the 12th. So a planet in the same sign as the ASC is considered to be rising. I also know that dr. farr has pointed out that the Hellenists gave different distinction to planets in the first whole sign house that were above the ASC (considered in the 12th today) than to planets that were below. Not to make too big a deal of it, but if we want to understand what those ancient astrologers were doing, we need to use the house system they were using. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Placidus.
 

Carris

Well-known member
Excellent information Carris, and thanks for sharing it. I think that there may be one point here to be understood, in that when using whole sign, which is far older than any quadrant based system, and I believe what the ancients you refer to used, the rising sign was the 1st house, not the 12th. So a planet in the same sign as the ASC is considered to be rising. I also know that dr. farr has pointed out that the Hellenists gave different distinction to planets in the first whole sign house that were above the ASC (considered in the 12th today) than to planets that were below. Not to make too big a deal of it, but if we want to understand what those ancient astrologers were doing, we need to use the house system they were using. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Placidus.
Thanks Tsmall.

But - what about all the births when the ascendant was in beginning of signs and planets were in the previous sign?

There must be many people born with ascendants at 0 to 10 degrees of a sign and planets in the previous sign. In that case are the planets not considered to be in the 12th house - even in whole house system?

My saturn was 20 degrees risen above the eastern horizon when I was born - would you consider that as the 1st house? Saturn was in 15 gemini and my ascendant is 5 cancer. Are you saying that the ancients would consider gemini to be my 1st house? That does not make sense! They are very clear about rising and setting planets and what that means.

Lets suppose: The king was born with jupiter at 21* aries and ascendant at 10* taurus. So would the ancients still consider jupiter to be in the 1st house? Would the king suddenly become unlucky? Jupiter is not considered to be "rising" anymore?
 
Last edited:

Carris

Well-known member
The collection of Babylonian horoscopes that Sachs translated, dated between 409 and 141 B.C., is an unsurpassed source of documentation. These are not yet the horoscopes we know today, nor the ones the Greeks were familiar with. As Sachs writes, "No Babylonian horoscope mentions the Horoscopus (the computed zodiacal sign or point rising at the time of birth) or any of the secondary astrological positions which play important roles in Greco-Roman astrology.

The Greek word horoscopos literally means: "I watch that which is rising" Originally the word was not used to refer to the whole planetary pattern at the moment of birth, as it is today, but only to the point of the zodiac rising over the horizon at the exact moment of birth. The idea is that, at birth, the infant is submitted to the influence of the constellation that is also being born. This "horoscope" point is just an abstract segment of the skies, yet it assumes a basic importance, since the whole orientation of the future depends on it. The child is seen as a sensitive photographic plate. At the very instant in which he gives forth his first cry, all the astrological influences converge on his cradle and blend together to develop his destiny.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Ancient (but not Babylonian**) astrology considers the entire sign which contains the ascending degree to be the first house. If a rising planet is NOT in that sign, then, although the planet is rising, it is NOT considered to be in the first house. Within that first house, if a planet is at or above the ascending degree, it was delineated differently than if it were in the first house but below the specific ascending degree (see for example, Liber Hermetis, regarding the discussion of the Sun in the first house, ie, the Sun being in the sign of the ascending degree, but above vs below that specific ascending degree relative to delineative ramifications)
The ancient concept of horoscope was exactly as Carris mentions: it was the zodion (sign) in which the exact rising degree (ascending degree) was posited at the moment of birth: everything and anything in that sign = being in the horoscope, and the relationship within that sign to the ascending degree in that sign, was taken into consideration as being the essence of the horoscope.


**Babylonian astrology was not Hellenist (or Vedic) astrology; one big difference is that the Babylonians used the equator rather than the ecliptic as their point of reference (at least through around the 4th century BC, possibly through the 2nd century) That makes a very important difference! Concepts of domification were also not (apparaently) developed in Babylonian astrology, which concepts played such a significant role in Hellenistic (and later Western) astrology, as well as in Vedic astrology. From available historical sources it seems Hellenistic astrology borrowed from Babylonian (and even moreso, Egyptian) astrological doctrines, to create its own unique approach, but the fact remains that Hellenist astrology was not a COPY of either Babylonian or Egyptian doctrines.
 
Last edited:

sandstone

Banned
carris,

indeed - helical rising is what they are talking about in the document you quoted from. this is separate from a view on the ascendant or a treatise on house positions which would have come much later in the chronology..

heliacal rising: it’s when the planet becomes visible before the rising of the Sun, and it increases in light and it is very fast. In this moment as all the new things it is moist in temperament and very strong in the birth chart.

http://heavenastrolabe.net/the-sun-and-heliacal-phases-of-the-planets/
 

Carris

Well-known member
carris,

indeed - helical rising is what they are talking about in the document you quoted from. this is separate from a view on the ascendant or a treatise on house positions which would have come much later in the chronology..

heliacal rising: it’s when the planet becomes visible before the rising of the Sun, and it increases in light and it is very fast. In this moment as all the new things it is moist in temperament and very strong in the birth chart.

http://heavenastrolabe.net/the-sun-and-heliacal-phases-of-the-planets/
I read that link - it does not connect with what I'm quoting from chaldean astrology - it would have clearly mentioned "comes forth before the sun" instead of:

If a child is born when the moon has come forth, (then his life will be) bright, excellent, regular and long.
If a child is born when Jupiter has come forth, (then his life will be) regular, well; he will become rich, he will grow old, (his) days will be long.
"If a child is born when Venus has come forth, (then his life will be) exceptionally calm; wherever he may go, it will be favorable; his days will be long.

and

The Greek word horoscopos literally means: "I watch that which is rising" Originally the word was not used to refer to the whole planetary pattern at the moment of birth, as it is today, but only to the point of the zodiac rising over the horizon at the exact moment of birth. The idea is that, at birth, the infant is submitted to the influence of the constellation that is also being born.
 

sandstone

Banned
carris we appear to be having much the same conversation on 2 seperate threads.. this one and the 12th house thread..

i am aware of what the greek work horocsopos means.. thanks. i believe the 'coming forth' quotes you have shared earlier are prior to greek horoscopos and about helical rising of planets, not about house positions.. nothing you have shared so far has convinced me otherwise.. if there is something whereby you can share that can do so, please do..
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
It is safe to say that there were not house systems extant in ancient ancient astrology. Those came later. There were signs but, no houses. So, we don;t need to worry about the difference between house and sign back then.

Also, what the ancients called "houses" were really signs.

Still, a planet rising (what they saw) has marked difference, generally, from our interpretation now.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Carris, I'm just a new student, but since you asked, I will answer to the best of my understanding so far.

But - what about all the births when the ascendant was in beginning of signs and planets were in the previous sign?

There must be many people born with ascendants at 0 to 10 degrees of a sign and planets in the previous sign. In that case are the planets not considered to be in the 12th house - even in whole house system?

A planet not in the same sign as the ASC is not in the first house at all, ever in whole sign. So if someone has an early ASC degree and a planet in the 12th sign from the ASC, that planet is in the 12th, not th 1st.

My saturn was 20 degrees risen above the eastern horizon when I was born - would you consider that as the 1st house? Saturn was in 15 gemini and my ascendant is 5 cancer. Are you saying that the ancients would consider gemini to be my 1st house? That does not make sense! They are very clear about rising and setting planets and what that means.

No, I would not consider your Saturn to be in the 1st. That is one idea that I think got lost or conflated with quadrant based house systems, where it was necessary to consider how close a planet was to the cusp to decide what house it belonged in. dr. farr can probably explain better, but the idea of angularity, and whetherplanets could be considered angular (very powerful/having full ability to act,) succedent (less powerful but still able to act,) or cadent (as JUPITERASC pointed out, very limited ability to act or create events) comes from the degrees from the angles. I may be misremembering, but if a planet is 15* before up to 15* degrees after an angle, it is strengthened, even if it isn't in the same sign as the angle. There are circumstances in which planets in the 12th and not angular can be strengthened, and that is yet another reason the whole chart has to be considered, not just one planet, or one aspect.

In the example you give of your own Saturn in Gemini it is 20* above the ASC, and so in the 12th by sign and cadent by angularity. However, Saturn is said to joy in the 12th. :smile:
 

Anachiel

Well-known member
...A planet not in the same sign as the ASC is not in the first house at all, ever in whole sign. So if someone has an early ASC degree and a planet in the 12th sign from the ASC, that planet is in the 12th, not th 1st.
...

Now someone correct me if I am wrong but....Whole Sign is not really a house system but, a lack thereof.

Comparitively, Equal house system is a house system distinct from the signs but, Whole Sign is simply that, signs...no houses. So, for example, the ASC in Whole Sign can be under the earth which, really makes no sense as it is the 'rising sign' but, I get the fact that Whole Sign system takes the 'rising sign' and simply put the whole sing first rather than the actual ASC.

Another thought; since the ancient may have also considered the cusp the middle of the house, and I have no idea how that would work with Whole Signs specfically but, assuming it did, then a planet could actually be in the ASC or 1st sign and not in the 12th even though it was above the horizon.

Not trying to be difficult here but some of this simply does not match but is more like a patchwork of various times and techniques being thrown together way out of context.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Now someone correct me if I am wrong but....Whole Sign is not really a house system but, a lack thereof.

I believe that originally, when the idea of using the signs and dividing the circle of the heavens came into being the signs were considered "places" or zodia. This is conjecture, but the idea of the 1st "place," the 2nd "place" is what gave rise to the "houses" as we know them today. The places were determined from the place/sign of the ASC, and proceeded around the circle through the signs from the "place" of the ASC.

Comparatively, Equal house system is a house system distinct from the signs but, Whole Sign is simply that, signs...no houses. So, for example, the ASC in Whole Sign can be under the earth which, really makes no sense as it is the 'rising sign' but, I get the fact that Whole Sign system takes the 'rising sign' and simply put the whole sing first rather than the actual ASC.

Maybe I am wrong, but the actual ASC as a point isn't ever under the earth. The ASC is the degree that was on the horizon at the moment of birth. How can that be under the earth? Is there some confusion around the idea that the ASC can be within the "house" or place, instead of the boarder of it?

Another thought; since the ancient may have also considered the cusp the middle of the house, and I have no idea how that would work with Whole Signs specifically but, assuming it did,

I'm not sure that the cusp, or most sensitive point, of any zodion or "house" if you will is the middle of the sign. dr. farr has again explained better in other posts, but the cusp degree is calculated based on the ASC degree. For example, in my chart I have ASC at 14* Libra. Yes, that is in the middle of the sign, and so the cusp or most sensitive point of my 2nd place/house in Scorpio will be at 14*. If my ASC was at 25* Libra, then the cusp or sensitive point of my second place/house would be 25* Scorpio. But, all of Scorpio is my second place.


then a planet could actually be in the ASC or 1st sign and not in the 12th even though it was above the horizon.

Exactly. Again using my own chart as an example, I have Sun at 2* Libra, Mercury at 10* Libra, and Jupiter at 13* Libra. If you like to consider the outers, I also have Uranus at 4* Libra. All of these planets are above the ASC, but with whole sign all of these planets are still in the 1st house/place/sign. Equal or Placidus puts them all in 12th, with the exception of Jupiter and possibly Mars, because with those systems we are supposed to figure out how many degrees before the cusp a planet must be to be considered in the next house.

Not trying to be difficult here but some of this simply does not match but is more like a patchwork of various times and techniques being thrown together way out of context.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Since you quoted my post, I assume you are referring to what I wrote? As I said when I replied to Carris, I am still a new student, but since Carris' question was directed to me I wanted to do my best to reply.
 

sandstone

Banned
i don't want to knock over any apple cart here, but if i do, just consider it a case of james not wearing his glasses, lol..

from my understanding of equal house system, it is very much the same as whole-sign houses.. it took me a while to get to this point, but if you read up on vedic literature they seem to like to keep all the planets in the sign with the sign that marks the house as well.. the degree is like the center where the crest of the wave is.. i have said this on this site before.. if a person has a planet in a particular sign, the house that sign lands on is the house/sign that planet is in.. i don't know if you will get this from somewhere on the net, but i got to this place prior to the net.. it was one of the reasons i liked equal house so much! the continuity was a beautiful thing in that it kept the relationships between the signs in a state of consistency, for me anyway.. when i eventually was exposed to whole-sign houses thru the work of robert hand, i felt like i didn't have to convert as i was already their... but then this is just me and my own path on equal houses that some others here might have some special insight into that i am unaware of.. that is how i understand equal house system - essentially the same as whole-sign houses.. when you think about it, it makes sense as apparently these folks that would drive around on magic carpets seemed to have hung onto some of the stuff from way back when!!!
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Now someone correct me if I am wrong but....Whole Sign is not really a house system but, a lack thereof.

Comparitively, Equal house system is a house system distinct from the signs but, Whole Sign is simply that, signs...no houses. So, for example, the ASC in Whole Sign can be under the earth which, really makes no sense as it is the 'rising sign' but, I get the fact that Whole Sign system takes the 'rising sign' and simply put the whole sing first rather than the actual ASC.

Another thought; since the ancient may have also considered the cusp the middle of the house, and I have no idea how that would work with Whole Signs specfically but, assuming it did, then a planet could actually be in the ASC or 1st sign and not in the 12th even though it was above the horizon.

Not trying to be difficult here but some of this simply does not match but is more like a patchwork of various times and techniques being thrown together way out of context.
(1) All Whole Sign "house borders" commence at 0º of each Sign. That is why it is known as “Whole Sign” houses i.e. because each Whole House IS one Whole Sign.

(2) When using Whole Sign house system, the Ascendant degree of the natal chart determines the sensitive points aka “cusps” within each subsequent Whole Sign house. Thus, given that the Ascendant degree using Whole Sign house system is at 14
º Libra, THEN the sensitive point aka “cusp” of every Whole Sign house of that particular nativity is also 14º.

i.e. IF Ascendant degree using Whole Sign house system = 14º Libra
THEN :

2
nd House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Scorpio
3
rd House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Sagittarius
4
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Capricorn
5
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Aquarius
6
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Pisces
7
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Aries
8
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Taurus
9
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Gemini
10
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Cancer
11
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Leo
12
th House sensitive point aka “cusp” = 14º Virgo

Historically, Whole Sign predates Equal House :smile:


Clearly then, "Equal House" simply discarded the original practice of commencing the border of each house at 0
º of each Sign BY REPLACING it with the idea of the “sensitive points” aka “cusps” themselves being “borders”


Equal House confused “sensitive points” aka “cusps” with “borders”


Hellenistic astrologers today use Whole Sign houses as the ancient method intended i.e. by commencing each "house border" at 0
º of each Sign AND ALSO NOTING the "sensitive points" aka "cusps" WITHIN each Whole Sign house as determined by the particular Ascendant degree i.e. the Ascendant degree did not always correspond to the "middle of a house" aka e.g. 15º Libra

dr farr also states:

Transits or progressions in whole sign, relative to "cusps" are to the sensitive degree of each sign/house, which is the degree of the ascendant projected into that house/sign (eg, if the ascending degree were 18, then the sensitive point of each of the following sign/houses would be 18: transits or progressions to the 18th degree of any sign/house would be the point delineated) We also get a "bonus" relative to transits and progressions in whole sign because in addition to the sensitive point we can also delineate when the border (0 degree) of the sign/house is crossed by transit or progression as well (although more emphasis is usually given when the transit or progression hits the sensitive point of the sign/house)
 

Moog

Well-known member
Now someone correct me if I am wrong but....Whole Sign is not really a house system but, a lack thereof.

That's quite interesting. I suppose it depends how you look at it, or what you want to call things. I can see it both ways.

I see a 'house' as a collection of significations dependent not on the inherent nature of the signs occupying a space, but on the position of that space relative to a point (ascendant).

Comparitively, Equal house system is a house system distinct from the signs but, Whole Sign is simply that, signs...no houses. So, for example, the ASC in Whole Sign can be under the earth which, really makes no sense as it is the 'rising sign' but, I get the fact that Whole Sign system takes the 'rising sign' and simply put the whole sing first rather than the actual ASC.
You're right, it doesn't make sense to have it under the earth. The astro.com chart maker does draw the whole sign chart ascendant on a slant, but that's not how it should be. I don't know if other packages also do it that way. The ascendant should remain horizontal. The portion of the sign that precedes the ascendant sits over the top of the horizon.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
......So, for example, the ASC in Whole Sign can be under the earth which, really makes no sense as it is the 'rising sign' but, I get the fact that Whole Sign system takes the 'rising sign' and simply put the whole sing first rather than the actual ASC

You're right, it doesn't make sense to have it under the earth. The astro.com chart maker does draw the whole sign chart ascendant on a slant, but that's not how it should be. I don't know if other packages also do it that way. The ascendant should remain horizontal. The portion of the sign that precedes the ascendant sits over the top of the horizon.
Not exactly. Remember that Astrological software is imperfect. For those accustomed to thinking of the Ascendant/Descendant as being on a horizontal straight line, Whole Sign Houses requires the realisation that the horizontal straight line with which computer software illustrates the Ascendant/Descendant axis is "incorrect" in the sense that the so-called Ascendant/Descendant axis in reality forms part of a great CIRCLE known as the HORIZON...

THEREFORE the ascendant/descendant axis is CURVED. BUT does computer software illustrate that? No! It does not!

Software is no substitute for looking at the skies. The Ascendant in Whole Sign houses IS NOT "under the earth"!

Go outdoors and observe a horizon that is unobstructed by buildings (for those of us in cities/towns that is not so easy obviously!) .... such a horizon is CURVED in relation to an observer located in the centre of the Great Circle of that Horizon.

To the observer's East is the Ascendant and to the observer's West is the Descendant which are LOCATED OPPOSITE EACH OTHER ON A CURVE THAT FORMS PART OF THE GREAT CIRCLE OF THE HORIZON!

ABOVE the Great Circle of that Horizon is the DOME of the skies

and


the Great Circle of the Horizon is ENCOMPASSED by the Celestial Sphere

Does computer software illustrate the world EXACTLY AS IT APPEARS TO THE OBSERVER? No it does not! Instead, a mathematical FLAT two-dimensional APPROXIMATION of a three dimensional "reality" is illustrated.:smile:
 
Last edited:

Moog

Well-known member
Oops, I said that in your voice... I'm a ventriloquist!

Sorry.

I was actually referring to the drawing of the ascendant on the charts... I mean you could draw it curved, but I'm not sure what benefit would be derived from doing so.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Not exactly. Remember that Astrological software is imperfect. For those accustomed to thinking of the Ascendant/Descendant as being on a horizontal straight line, Whole Sign Houses requires the realisation that the horizontal straight line with which computer software illustrates the Ascendant/Descendant axis is "incorrect" in the sense that the so-called Ascendant/Descendant axis in reality forms part of a great CIRCLE known as the HORIZON...

THEREFORE the ascendant/descendant axis is CURVED. BUT does computer software illustrate that? No! It does not!

Software is no substitute for looking at the skies. The Ascendant in Whole Sign houses IS NOT "under the earth"!

Go outdoors and observe a horizon that is unobstructed by buildings (for those of us in cities/towns that is not so easy obviously!) .... such a horizon is CURVED in relation to an observer located in the centre of the Great Circle of that Horizon.

To the observer's East is the Ascendant and to the observer's West is the Descendant which are LOCATED OPPOSITE EACH OTHER ON A CURVE THAT FORMS PART OF THE GREAT CIRCLE OF THE HORIZON!

ABOVE the Great Circle of that Horizon is the DOME of the skies

and

the Great Circle of the Horizon is ENCOMPASSED by the Celestial Sphere

Does computer software illustrate the world EXACTLY AS IT APPEARS TO THE OBSERVER? No it does not! Instead, a mathematical FLAT two-dimensional APPROXIMATION of a three dimensional "reality" is illustrated.:smile:

The only time I've ever been able to observe the curviture of the horizon is on the Great Plains, or from an airplane. My math has never been very good, but isn't an axis in this case a straight line drawn from one point to another? In this case from the ASC to the DC? One point on the celestial sphere to another?

I do think the better point to this post JUPITERASC is that sometimes it's a good idea for astrologers to go outside, and just...look at the stars. :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The only time I've ever been able to observe the curviture of the horizon is on the Great Plains, or from an airplane. My math has never been very good, but isn't an axis in this case a straight line drawn from one point to another? In this case from the ASC to the DC? One point on the celestial sphere to another?
The Ascendant and Descendant ARE opposite each other AND on a Great Circle known as the Horizon which is also a "plane" - so that "straight line" everyone observes across the centre of every natal chart as drawn by astrological software actually is illustrating a plane as represented by the Great CIRCLE of the Horizon. :smile:
I do think the better point to this post JUPITERASC is that sometimes it's a good idea for astrologers to go outside, and just...look at the stars. :smile:
AND the HORIZON :smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Oops, I said that in your voice... I'm a ventriloquist!
Sorry.
I was actually referring to the drawing of the ascendant on the charts... I mean you could draw it curved, but I'm not sure what benefit would be derived from doing so.
Moog, when one views a circle from the side then one is viewing a straight line that is descriptive of a plane. Picture a straight line. Then picture that straight line as being part of a circle as viewed from the side :smile:
 
Top