Profecting charts

MSO

Well-known member
So you would delineate a profected chart by comparing it to the natal and looking for aspects (or just conjunctions)? And you would delineate the profected chart as if it were a natal chart for that year? Seeing as to how the Sun would always be in the 3rd House (in the profected chart) you'd only look at the sign its in, right?
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Yes (to all of your questions) that's my understanding of using profection charts-at least that is the way I do it:w00t:!
I use only profection conjunctions (sign conjunctions included) with the natal planetary positions; also any profection planet longitudinal conjunction with a star.
 

!4C

Well-known member
With Egyptian profection the ascendant (1st natal house) comes back around at ages 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72 and 84 years of age.

In the lesser known Pauline profection the ascendant (1st natal house) comes back around at ages 13, 25, 37, 49, 61, 73 and 85 years of age.

So, at age 42, by the generally followed Egyptian profection method the ascendant for the 42nd year would be in the natal 7th; however in Pauline profection the ascendant for the 42nd year would fall in the natal 6th house.
So what is the deal with the 1 year offset in the Pauline method? It's like saying life doesn't start until you survive the first year trial period. :lol: More seriously, does it discount infancy as creation phase and not a valid growth phase? I think some programming begins after birth (at least lower brain) but the brain is still in physical development up to at least 1.5 years, so there is some over lap. I'm not sure about the particulars. I'm not a human development expert, but the implications are interesting.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
So what is the deal with the 1 year offset in the Pauline method? It's like saying life doesn't start until you survive the first year trial period. :lol: More seriously, does it discount infancy as creation phase and not a valid growth phase? I think some programming begins after birth (at least lower brain) but the brain is still in physical development up to at least 1.5 years, so there is some over lap. I'm not sure about the particulars. I'm not a human development expert, but the implications are interesting.
I was also taught to check our PROFECTIONS. That's where each year you graduate a SIGN for your rising so that every 12th year (since we start at ZERO) we repeat our natal rising sign. WHEN you profect to what is typically your 7th house rising then that is your focus that year. Or I would also think that, for example, since I am Pisces rising....after my birthday next Wed I profect to a Virgo rising which is my 7th house.

HOWEVER, with transiting Saturn in Libra squaring my natal Venus in Cancer 17 degrees....where it'll retrograde so I'll get a 3 time pass over.....I am thinking that will null and void my 7th house focus this time.

Drat. ahahahaha.

Again, the RIGHT fella is WORTH the wait! :biggrin:

Here is a PROFECTION WHEEL.

ProfectionWheel.jpg


Interesting and relevant historical comment posted also by dr. farr on that same thread - I have highlighted both quoted posts with 'bold' at various junctures in order to add emphasis :smile:
The Greco/Roman astrologers made very extensive use of profections in predictive work; the method deserves much more attention than it has been accorded over the past 100 years; I favor it far more than transits (no offense, please!), and I believe I frequently derive more specific indications from it than from simple symbolic progression or even Solar Returns (of course I often follow the advice of Charles Carter and compare indications from 2 or sometimes all 3 of the methods applied to the subject chart)

The wonderful profection chart above, and Amy's excellent comments, represent the original concepts regarding profection and "how to profect", and these should be followed by all beginners and other interested students.

However, I have been influenced a great deal by Paulus Alexandrianus and Olympiodorus in their slight modification of profection:

except for them,

all ancient astologers applied the profection starting at 0 years of age (exactly as shown on the profection wheel);

thus at age 12 the cycle starts again, then at 24, and so on.

Paulus/Olympiodorus start at the "first year of life", so, in a way, their profection is by a factor of 13 (not of 12 as found in all other authorities**) Thus, in Pauline profection, the cycle begins at "1", then the cycle starts again at 13, then at 26, and so on.

Technically this is INCORRECT (compared with all other historical authorities),
yet this is the method I have come to practice relative to profections, and which has worked extremely well for me
(I am not advocating this Pauline profection to any persons other than advanced practitioners, and to them only for experimental purposes)


There are several examples of Pauline profection which I had posted on skyscript, and an example here on AW are my posts to the thread "Cause of Death" (by AW member Backy) in the Natal Astrology section. Another AW member also made posts to that thread based upon the (historically) "correct" way to do profections (the by 12 method, rather than the Pauline by 13), and it is interesting to compare the differences between the indications derived by each method, as elaborated in hose postings.

(**Paulus-358 AD-also used a "by 13" calculation for dodekatemorion ramifications, rather than the more ancient "by 12" calculation-also known as Egyptian dodekatemorion-followed by virtually all of the other hellenist authorities, from Dorotheus of Sidon on down through Rhetorius)
 

!4C

Well-known member
In the lesser known Pauline profection the ascendant (1st natal house) comes back around at ages 13, 25, 37, 49, 61, 73 and 85 years of age.
So this sequence was an error? It's a period of 13, not an offset? That is what I initially expected. I was really reaching to come up with an explanation for an offset. However I'm the king of creative BS, so mission accomplished. :biggrin:

That leads to the next question, is this difference of period to synchronize with important cycles in the transits? Maybe a more accurate period is not a whole number. What would be the chances that it is a whole number?
 
Last edited:

tsmall

Premium Member
So this sequence was an error? It's a period of 13, not an offset? That is what I initially expected. I was really reaching to come up with an explanation for an offset. However I'm the king of creative BS, so mission accomplished. :biggrin:

I'm not terribly familiar with the Pauline method, but I think it is an offset. If you notice, it's more of where you start the count. 13+12=25. 25+12=37 and so on.

That leads to the next question, is this difference of period to synchronize with important cycles in the transits? Maybe a more accurate period is not a whole number. What would be the chances that it is a whole number?

I'm not sure this is addressing your question, but I'm not sure I completely understand the question either. :smile:

I'm not by any means an expert, but I don't believe profections have anything at all to do with transits. It is a means of directing the ASC through the signs. For annual profections, the ASC moves one 30* arc per year. Yet another reason that I prefer to use whole signs for natal charts, because it is easier to see it...

An example. My ASC is at 14* Libra. Each year around my birthday the ASC will have profected in zodiacal motion to that degree of the next sign. So on my first birthday the profected ASC was at 14* Scorpio, and so on.

What I think you might be missing is that during that year the ASC actually continues moving, each month to a new sign, and each day to a new degree (or fraction there of.)

So this year (which for me started with my Solar return in September 2012) my profected ASC was in Taurus, my natal 8th. This brings the ASC to the 8th, making the 8th the first.

If I look for today, Feb 17 2013, we have Taurus for the year, but Virgo for the month and Virgo for the day. I have never seen anyone use monthly/daily profections to explain them, but it would seem that much like primary directions when the ASC comes to a planet or key natal point we might look for an event, especially if there are other indications/testimonies for one.

They way that I have mostly seen (and use them myself at this stage of learning) is in conjunction with the Solar Return. We would look to see who the Lord of the profection year is, and then look at his position in the SR chart, as well as the position of the SR year ruler.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
By implication in starting the count (of the first year of life) at 1 (instead of at 0, as in the Egyptian method) the prenatal time is obviously taken into account as a time factor: thus by Egyptian 0 is used for the birth year (not turning into a 1 until 1 year after birth) whereas in Pauline 1 is used for the entire birth year, turning into 2 at the return of the birth date, etc...


(Note: I am not aware of any of the current "leaders"/authors of the Traditionalist revival, or of the neo-Hellenist movement, using either Pauline profection or Pauline dodekatemorion: ALL use Egyptain profection and Egyptian dodekatemorion; when I post about Pauline profection or dodeks, I am referring only to what I use, and am not attempting to proselytize; I found these variant techniques {the Pauline} in the old literature, and tested them out, and liked the results, so have continued to use them; whether or not the Pauline are superior to, equal to or inferior to the Egyptian profections and dodeks, I cannot say, only that they have worked to my personal satisfaction)
 
Last edited:

tsmall

Premium Member
(Note: I am not aware of any of the current "leaders"/authors of the Traditionalist revival, or of the neo-Hellenist movement, using either Pauline profection or Pauline dodekatemorion: ALL use Egyptain profection and Egyptian dodekatemorion; when I post about Pauline profection or dodeks, I am referring only to what I use, and am not attempting to proselytize; I found these variant techniques {the Pauline} in the old literature, and tested them out, and liked the results, so have continued to use them; whether or not the Pauline are superior to, equal to or inferior to the Egyptian profections and dodeks, I cannot say, only that they have worked to my personal satisfaction)

I think this is something that often gets missed, dr. farr. We look at astrologers today and see the back and forth over which technique is considered "technically correct" and argue unto death (not just in modern vs. neo-traditional, but in the traditional) about which way is the correct way. Valens, as confusing to read as he might be, was at least explicit in explaining the other methods that he knew of for doing things, whether he favored them or not. The more we explore the "new" texts that have come to light, the more we can see that each astrologer/master had his own way of doing things. It's a reminder, I think, that it is important to study the old methods and their variations as given, and then try them all out to see which one works best for us as individuals.

Astrology is a language. We all can agree on that. The real question is which parts, words, grammar and sentence structure does the astrologer use in order to express his/her meaning? Or more appropriately read the chart? English, as spoken, is different from England to Canada to Australia to the US. We are speaking the "same" language, but how we use it is..user defined.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
....Astrology is a language. We all can agree on that. The real question is which parts, words, grammar and sentence structure does the astrologer use in order to express his/her meaning? Or more appropriately read the chart? English, as spoken, is different from England to Canada to Australia to the US. We are speaking the "same" language, but how we use it is..user defined.
Symbols are created to depict Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Asc/Desc/MC/IC and so on
AND THEN placed within a symbolic circle
so that those SYMBOLIC IMAGES for planets may be 'translated' into 'language' and 'grammar' BEFORE being 'interpreted'

A symbol has endless meanings, dependent on the context.

AND, there are multiple language formats for the 'translation' of any symbolic astrological chart :smile:

Those planetary symbols are 'translated' by millions of individuals worldwide
FROM symbolic form INTO their own native language, be it French, German, Spanish, Russian, Greek, Roumanian, Tibetan, Eskimo and so on
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
So this sequence was an error?

It's a period of 13, not an offset?

That is what I initially expected.
UPDATE

EXPLANATION OF period of 13 :smile:
DODEKATEMORIA
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/dodekatemorion.html
Discussion at http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8999



I was really reaching to come up with an explanation for an offset.
However I'm the king of creative BS, so mission accomplished. :biggrin:

That leads to the next question, is this difference of period to synchronize with important cycles in the transits?
Maybe a more accurate period is not a whole number.
What would be the chances that it is a whole number?
 

waybread

Well-known member
Seriously, JA? I've looked at a few, and have not found them transparently obvious.

Have you got a few charts in mind to post and delineate?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The place where the count starts, ie the first house, can make a difference:
the Egyptian method (which ahs always been the dominant one, and is the one followed by Valens)
begins the count at 0 (in other words, the year after birth = the 1st house and is counted as 0)

Paulus of Alexandria differed, and began the count at 1
(in other words, the year after birth = the 1st house and is counted as 1)

I myself have followed the Pauline profection
(all of the available authors have chosen to follow the Egyptian method of starting @ 0, including Lehman, Ben Dykes, etc)

In my experience I have found Pauline profection to be the more accurate profection method.
Paulus gave one of the clearer expositions of the basic technique (Ch. 31, from Greenbaum trans., 2001):
As many years as the nativity should spin out,
we pass these through from the hour-marking zōidion [sign],
giving the first year of engendered time to the Hōroskopos [ascending sign]
and the second to the post-ascension of the Hōroskopos [2nd place],
and so on for the rest in the following zōidia [signs],
until the 12th number should be completed.

Basic Technique: Annual Profections of the Ascendant :smile:

Paulus quote illustrates basic profections,
of Ascendant from one sign to next for each year of life.
Paulus gives examples, of how the Profection ruler becomes “lord of the year”.
The technique is easy - requires no computer software,
there are no specific degrees invlved,
rather just discrete hops from one place in the chart
to the next
at intervals of time.

The technique is “circumambulation”, meaning a “walking around” the chart. Seven Stars Astrology
 

Monk

Premium Member
Hi Jup, eekk an archaeoastronomer,

I agree with some but not with others, i'm dealing with birth charts, i can make a difference in area of RECTIFIED FROM APPROX. TIME OF BIRTH!

For Helena P. Blavatsky, she never knew time of birth, however most astrology sites now put it as 02:17am on 12th August 1831, this is dubious, being Rectified from Approx. Time by astrologers!

For her who was born in a country that followed the Julian Calendar during time of birth we get a date of 31st July 1831, but this is a Julian Date, thus 12 days have to be added, for true accurate interpretation, so as far as i know 12 August 1831, will give a date for astrology programmes!

Time of birth is far more dubious, due to rectified time by astrologers, why choose 02:17am???

Please scroll down to source notes on link below:-

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Blavatsky,_Helena_P.

The above doesn't seem to work, but i'm sure you can find it by search engine!

Yes on day in location, Sirius was rising 11 mins 18 secs before Sunrise, but choosing 02:17 am was putting "Muddy Waters" on top, sorry for musical pun, we will never know time of birth for Blavatsky, but choosing 02:17 am is very odd, as ALNILAM WAS RISING!!

Graph on private members download:-
 

Attachments

  • picture 61 40%.jpg
    picture 61 40%.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hi Jup, eekk an archaeoastronomer,

I agree with some but not with others, i'm dealing with birth charts, i can make a difference in area of RECTIFIED FROM APPROX. TIME OF BIRTH!

For Helena P. Blavatsky, she never knew time of birth, however most astrology sites now put it as 02:17am on 12th August 1831, this is dubious, being Rectified from Approx. Time by astrologers!

For her who was born in a country that followed the Julian Calendar during time of birth we get a date of 31st July 1831, but this is a Julian Date, thus 12 days have to be added, for true accurate interpretation, so as far as i know 12 August 1831, will give a date for astrology programmes!

Time of birth is far more dubious, due to rectified time by astrologers, why choose 02:17am???

Please scroll down to source notes on link below:-

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Blavatsky,_Helena_P.

The above doesn't seem to work, but i'm sure you can find it by search engine!

Yes on day in location, Sirius was rising 11 mins 18 secs before Sunrise, but choosing 02:17 am was putting "Muddy Waters" on top, sorry for musical pun, we will never know time of birth for Blavatsky, but choosing 02:17 am is very odd, as ALNILAM WAS RISING!!

Graph on private members download:-
Hi Monk :smile:
That's interesting,
but reliance on a time that is not known for certain means
profecting the chart would be challenging
and not necessarily reliable
 

Monk

Premium Member
It would be easy to connect Blavatsky to Sirius, but why do astrologers make a soup on top?

Also, obviously you follow Sirius connections, but Alnilam is far more difficult, it seems that some esoteric astrologers have rectified time to correspond to Alnilam rising....02:17am as given on most astrology websites...very dubious!

http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Helena_Blavatsky
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
It would be easy to connect Blavatsky to Sirius, but why do astrologers make a soup on top?

Also, obviously you follow Sirius connections, but Alnilam is far more difficult, it seems that some esoteric astrologers have rectified time to correspond to Alnilam rising....02:17am as given on most astrology websites...very dubious!


http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Helena_Blavatsky
Different astrologers often rectify charts to different times of birth for the same chart Monk, so dubious :smile:
 

Monk

Premium Member
I have no idea when God was born, or Son of God, icons matter, and to lesser degree Blavatsky...are we fooling everybody, by esoteric doctrine???

How can we get astrology right, when icons are very dubiously activated???

Esoteric Religion has a major role in our progress forward, i'm not sure we should take that STEP!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Top