Are stationary planets more or less powerful?

[depthseeker]

It seems like there's some dispute on this point.

In Demetra George's "Astrology and the Authentic Self" (p. 61), she writes that "When a planet... [makes a heliacal rising or setting] or makes a station direct or retrograde within seven days before or after the birth... phasis occurs...[this] indicates an intensification of its energies; the significations of that planet saturate the life, for better or worse..."

Whereas in John Frawley's The Horary Textbook, revised ed., p. 66: "Station is a time of great weakness and vulnerability for a planet. Only the strongest of extenuating circumstances will render it capable of action at such times."

And in this article, it's said:

In Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, we read that stationary planets are akin to rising planets in terms of their potency. Ptolemy believed that a stationary planet — far from being weak or afflicted — was arguably one of the most powerful planets in a chart. Whether Ptolemy was an astrologer or simply a scribe who catalogued the astrological consensus of his time, his view was that stationary planets were very strong indeed:

Which of these views do you consider to be correct and why?

 

[The Everqueen]

Natal charts are for the long term, a horary is for 'now' that would be my reasoning. I don't know how much of natal astrology rules are in horary as I don't do natal stuff so not much help to you really!

 

[JUPITERASC]

Natal charts are for the long term, a horary is for 'now' that would be my reasoning.
I don't know how much of natal astrology rules are in horary
as I don't do natal stuff so not much help to you really!

Natal and Horary are SEPARATE - DIFFERENT techniques




.

 

[JUPITERASC]

It seems like there's some dispute on this point.

In Demetra George's "Astrology and the Authentic Self" (p. 61), she writes that "When a planet... [makes a heliacal rising or setting] or makes a station direct or retrograde within seven days before or after the birth... phasis occurs...[this] indicates an intensification of its energies; the significations of that planet saturate the life, for better or worse..."

Whereas in John Frawley's The Horary Textbook, revised ed., p. 66: "Station is a time of great weakness and vulnerability for a planet. Only the strongest of extenuating circumstances will render it capable of action at such times."

And in this article, it's said:

In Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, we read that stationary planets are akin to rising planets in terms of their potency. Ptolemy believed that a stationary planet — far from being weak or afflicted — was arguably one of the most powerful planets in a chart. Whether Ptolemy was an astrologer or simply a scribe who catalogued the astrological consensus of his time, his view was that stationary planets were very strong indeed:

Which of these views do you consider to be correct and why?

Robert Schmidt - Deceased 2018
translations of Vettius Valens http://www.projecthindsight.com/

CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO THE SUN:

When a planet is in the interval from heliacal rising up to first station

or
from second station up to the heliacal setting
the planet is capable of appearing

and
therefore is in a place conducive to the conduct of its business .

The heliacal rising of a star
or other body
such as the moon, a planet or a constellation
occurs when it first becomes visible above the eastern horizon
for a brief moment just before sunrise
after a period of time when it had not been visible



.

 

[JUPITERASC]

*


When a planet is making a Station and/or phasis
it is not only capable of appearing but is also intensified



Robert Schmidt - fluent Ancient Greek Classics Scholar
says that Phasis means

“...making an appearance...”

or

“...sudden dramatic showing of something...”


It can also mean

“...something that speaks...”

or
we can say that it means “...an appearance that speaks...”


.

 

[JUPITERASC]

*



PHASIS

describes a planet making a heliacal rising

aka rising before the sun


standardized to 15 degrees by Hellenistic astrology
- within 7 days before of after native’s birth.
Rumen Kolev one of the few living practitioners of Ancient Babylonian Astrology
based on his own observations of the skies
states that the 15[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] standardisation[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] is obviously a variable dependent upon local conditions.[/FONT]

http://www.babylonianastrology.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=44


.

 

[JUPITERASC]

*



When any planet is “...under the sun’s beams...”

i.e.
within 15 ecliptic degrees of the sun
the planet is considered not capable of conducting its business
due to being “...drained or unempowered...”


However
there are modifications to this

such as
if a planet is in its Exaltation
own terms

or own bounds

or dignity
then

the planet is considered to be “...in its own chariot...”

and therefore
“...protected and/or shielded..”

from the potential '...harm...' of combustion.


ROBERT SCHMIDT - PROJECT HINDSIGHT http://www.projecthindsight.com/

provides analogy of "...travelling in own limo with shaded windows ..."




.

 

[JUPITERASC]

*



ROBERT SCHMIDT - PROJECT HINDSIGHT http://www.projecthindsight.com/


When a planet
is in the interval
of first station to second station

aka retrograde
the planet is not fit to conduct its business
because it is described as “...walking backwards...”


.

 

[IleneK]

Really depends on the chart. In some charts they are, and in some charts they are not. But it has nothing to do whether they appear stationary or not, since no planet is stationary, it just looks like that from an inaccurate ephemeri.

When You use an ephemeris that is accurate to the second of time, you find that there is no point where the planet becomes stationary. I can set my software to generate an ephemeris, and have it done second by second. There is no such thing as a stationary planet.

True, but penetrating just the littlest bit deeper into what OP is referring to, we can safely infer that it is a stationing planet rather than a stationary planet.

We all know that planets don't really move backwards, cease the backwards movement and then proceed forward on their apparent path. These meanings in astrology are grounded in the apparent, visible motion.

So planets apply to station and then very briefly appear stationary before proceeding in the opposition direction.
They must, or how else could they change their apparent direction?
An interesting hair you have chosen to split.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Really depends on the chart. In some charts they are, and in some charts they are not. But it has nothing to do whether they appear stationary or not, since no planet is stationary, it just looks like that from an inaccurate ephemeri.

When You use an ephemeris that is accurate to the second of time, you find that there is no point where the planet becomes stationary. I can set my software to generate an ephemeris, and have it done second by second. There is no such thing as a stationary planet.

software programs vary - observation of local skies supercedes software

Robert Schmidt - Deceased 2018
translations of Vettius Valens http://www.projecthindsight.com/

CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO THE SUN:

When a planet is in the interval from heliacal rising up to first station

or
from second station up to the heliacal setting
the planet is capable of appearing

and
therefore is in a place conducive to the conduct of its business .

The heliacal rising of a star
or other body
such as the moon, a planet or a constellation
occurs when it first becomes visible above the eastern horizon
for a brief moment just before sunrise
after a period of time when it had not been visible

Venus

and much fainter

Mars

continue in the early dawn as shown here. Look southeast.
Mercury is much lower in the dawn
some 22° to Venus's lower left.

Saturn emerges from the sunrise glare
conjunction with Mercury on the morning of March 2nd
when they're only 0.7° apart.
Mercury that morning is the brighter one
Saturn glimmers to its upper left.

.

 

[JUPITERASC]

True, but penetrating just the littlest bit deeper into what OP is referring to, we can safely infer that it is a stationing planet rather than a stationary planet.

We all know that planets don't really move backwards, cease the backwards movement and then proceed forward on their apparent path. These meanings in astrology are grounded in the apparent, visible motion.

So planets apply to station and then very briefly appear stationary before proceeding in the opposition direction.
They must, or how else could they change their apparent direction?

Exactly - differences in the planets' orbits relative to earth
make the planet appear to stop
and then move backward
or retrograde, in the sky for a brief time

oh oh oh my god!

.

 

[IleneK]

I follow convention which preceded Frawley. I see stationing as a slowing and gathering of power. In my imagined conception of this, the body expends more energy to go fast or faster, so has less power.

But that is personal opinion based on my limited life experience.
And also I personally see that ephemeral moment, when the body appears to stand still in space and time, ready to completely reverse its course, as imbued with mystery. Certainly not to be dismissed, in any case.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Who knew! who knew?

rhetorical?


.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Who knew! who knew?

rhetorical?

I follow convention which preceded Frawley. I see stationing as a slowing and gathering of power. In my imagined conception of this, the body expends more energy to go fast or faster, so has less power.

But that is personal opinion based on my limited life experience.
And also I personally see that ephemeral moment, when the body appears to stand still in space and time, ready to completely reverse its course, as imbued with mystery. Certainly not to be dismissed, in any case.

It seems more of a mystical view than a scientific one. I view astrology not as planets doing things to people, but as an energy system(much as the evolutionary astrologers) which gives us an idea about how the energy moves, but we don’t know how or why. A sign post to an energy we cannot see.

Who knew! who knew?

rhetorical?

Your posts are often so exasperating(often non-sequitor) that I lose control and have to say something even though I should not since I have you on IGNORE and should leave you there. And then I end up deleting my comments. I have to hope that you do this on purpose, because the alternative is one I’d rather not contemplate.

FOR INTERESTED BEGINNERS

.

 

[IleneK]

It seems more of a mystical view than a scientific one. I view astrology not as planets doing things to people, but as an energy system(much as the evolutionary astrologers) which gives us an idea about how the energy moves, but we don’t know how or why. A sign post to an energy we cannot see.

Thank you for your reply.
It is more mystical, or art, than scientific.

I love and respect science, astronomy especially, but also physics, chemistry and the biological sciences. And I worked with computers from punch cards, through the inception of the PC on until 2011, and really appreciate what they are and what they can and cannot do.
Through my study of and work with astrology since the early 90's, I see astrology as a mixture of both art and science, with astronomy necessarily at its foundation to create ephemeri. But it is the combination of art wedded to logic, the rules of science as they apply to astrology, that allow for what I cønsider to be a more complete delineation of a chart.


PS I don't see planets doing things, either; they are merely reflections of what is unfolding in our lives from preceeding causes and conditions, which are largely unknown. A mirror, so to speak.

 

[IleneK]

Your posts are often so exasperating(often non-sequitor) that I lose control and have to say something even though I should not since I have you on IGNORE and should leave you there. And then I end up deleting my comments. I have to hope that you do this on purpose, because the alternative is one I’d rather not contemplate.

Samantha,
I do offer this to you sincerely and with the best of intentions:
Breathe, my friend. See the larger picture.
[It may strike you as a bit mystical, too? But it is very practical, helpful, in this kind of situation. Try it and you will see.]


With kindness,

 

[Chrysalis]

Samantha,
I do offer this to you sincerely and with the best of intentions:
Breathe, my friend. See the larger picture.
[It may strike you as a bit mystical, too? But it is very practical, helpful, in this kind of situation. Try it and you will see.]


With kindness,

True! Jupiters posts can come across to some people as rather condescending, but if you are prepared to dig deeper through the bold blue text, they are actually informative posts.

 

[JUPITERASC]

True! Jupiters posts can come across to some people

as rather condescending, but
if you are prepared to dig deeper through the bold blue text,

they are actually informative posts.

Thank you for your observations!

I'm glad when people discern useful information from comments I post







.

 

[The Everqueen]

Natal and Horary are SEPARATE - DIFFERENT techniques .

I know they are 'separate and different' but it never stops people mixing techniques up.

 

[dr. farr]

In my personal experience I have not seen stationary or stationing planets exerting any special increase of influence BEYOND THE INFLUENCE INDICATED BY THEIR OVERALL SITUATION IN THE CHART; I understand the theories about this but I myself cannot say that I have seen the alleged phenomena take place in actuality.