Do you agree with this? (House Positions = Sign Placements)

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
In traditional astrology, houses, not signs, have strength or weakness; as modified by their ruling planets.
Valens has perfectly awful things to say about Aquarius and Capricorn, apparently due to their Saturn rulership
.
Valens faithfully chronicled astrological lore that was already ancient in his day :smile:
two thousand years ago approximately
so Valens simply relayed ancient astrological principles
that included "perfectly awful things to say about Aquarius and Capricorn"

People are always so quick to hate on Saturn
but a well dignified Saturn can really rule a chart
(I know this personally :wink:)
The greatest rewards are often given for the most grueling of challenges.

So Valens can suck it
. :innocent:
NEVERTHELESS
to be fair
Valens was NOT "quick to hate on Saturn"
If you read THE ANTHOLOGY
notice Vettius Valens remarks concerning Scorpio for example
:smile:
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Good--I was pondering the difference between
the strength of the effect of a Planet which is in its Fall in a Sign, but located in an Angular-house,
compared to that Planet in its Exaltation in a Sign, but located in a Cadent-house.
:unsure:
Traditionally the planet in its Fall in a Sign
but located in an angular house
"is much more forceful in its EFFECTS" :smile:
than if the planet were in its Exaltation in a Sign, but cadent
HOWEVER
there are other considerations as the whole chart must be taken into account
not just one factor
 

waybread

Well-known member
Ptolemy may have said that Venus in Scorpio and Moon in Cancer being trine is positive but I have heard some say (in other online discussions) that it would be better far better to receive the trine from Venus in Pisces, not just because Venus is exalted there but because it stops the Moon from being received in her fall (aspected by a planet in the Moon's sign of fall) The idea would be that since Venus is not only in detriment but in the Moon's fall, it would be better she doesn't aspect the Moon at all, even by trine which is usually a positive aspect.

It's something I've considered recently. Not sure how I feel about it.

I've not seen this precisely, but something to the effect that if the receiving planet is in a weakened condition, it's not going to help out its"guest" very much. You can have two planets in mutual reception, for example, like Venus Scorpio and Mars in Taurus that should theoretically help each other, yet neither is in a strong position.

Of course, an exalted Venus or fallen moon might have other essential and accidental dignities at work in the same chart that can be taken into account. If the moon is in sect, angular and getting some help from a third planet, that might mitigate some of the debility of the fall alone.
 

waybread

Well-known member
People are always so quick to hate on Saturn but a well dignified Saturn can really rule a chart (I know this personally :wink:) The greatest rewards are often given for the most grueling of challenges. So Valens can suck it. :innocent:

....!

Hey, don't take this personally. There's been a lot of movement in astrology since the second century CE.

Frankly, I prefer modern astrology but am teaching myself the rudiments of traditional astrology and its early history.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hey, don't take this personally.
There's been a lot of movement in astrology since the second century CE.

Frankly, I prefer modern astrology
but am teaching myself the rudiments of traditional astrology and its early history.

unsurprisingly much has not changed

even when taking into consideration that
"there's been a lot of movement in astrology since the second century CE"


for example
Vettius Valens SOLAR REVOLUTION
is simply rebranded as :smile:
THE SOLAR RETURN
 

david starling

Well-known member

unsurprisingly much has not changed

even when taking into consideration that
"there's been a lot of movement in astrology since the second century CE"


for example
Vettius Valens SOLAR REVOLUTION
is simply rebranded as :smile:
THE SOLAR RETURN

Not surprising that Traditional is at the roots, connecting to the Modern branches--it's a synergistic relationship. As far attitudinal changes go, BIG difference between the Age of Tropical Capricorn on the cusp of Sagittarius, and the Age of Capricorn now, on the cusp of Aquarius--means a major shift in the prevailing World-view as reflected in each Chart. "Prevailing", not "unanimous"--depends on the Age Indicator location relative to the rest of the Chart. If you choose to ignore the Age-effect, then yes, no reason why things should be different now, compared to then. [Tropical Age of Capricorn (using Mean indicator position) 400 to 2150 C.E., a 1750 year cycle using the Progression of the Perihelion (NOT the same as the Sidereal Age's Precession of the Equinox, which is retrograde, and a 2150 year cycle, with an Age of Pisces beginning around 200 C.E., depending on the Ayanamsa).]
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
On the contrary
Traditional Astrology has roots, trunk as well as it's own multiple branches
Modernist Astrology is simply composed of a few twigs
:smile:

A tree without twigs has neither leaves, nor fruit--it's barren. Traditional alone has no twigs and only two main trunks, from which Modern branches grow, and sprout their twigs: Traditional-Tropical, and Traditional-Vedic. But it does supply the indispensable roots!
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
On the contrary
Traditional Astrology has roots, trunk as well as it's own multiple branches
Modernist Astrology is simply composed of a few twigs
:smile:

This actually isn't correct, assuming that by "modernist" you mean "modern." Since the development of modern western astrology ca. 1900, we have added or included previously neglected themes:

1, harmonic charts, so-called minor aspects
2. modern outer planets and dwarf planets
3. asteroids
4. midpoints (previously known, but less developed)
5. I'm not sure about declination, but I think that the use of parallels and counter-parallels is modern.
6. An expansion of astrology's intellectual and practical contexts. Not so into stoicism, fatalism, and astral determinism. Expanded meanings of houses.
7. An expanded understanding of human nature, beyond the 4 humours and temperament.
8. Most of the early work on computerizing horoscope calculations was done by modern astrologers, who developed the software. More recently some trads have contributed to software development. Anyone here ever calculated a horoscope by hand?

Use these contributions, or don't. Like them or don't. But let's be fair-minded about modern astrology's innovations.
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
HOUSES are either:
angular = 1st, 4th, 7th & 10th
succeedent = 2nd, 5th, 8th, & 11th
or
cadent = 3rd, 6th, 9th & 12th


houses are not all equal in strength and power :smile:

i.e.
If a planet is located in an angular house it is much more forceful in its effects
than it would be in a cadent house.

in CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY William Lilly writes:

The angles are most powerful
the succeedents are next in virtue
the cadents poor, and of little efficacy:
the succeedent houses follow the angles
the cadents come next after the succeedents.

In force and virtue they stand so in order
:

1 10 7 4 11 5 9 3 2 8 6 12

The meaning whereof is this
that two planets equally dignified
the one in the Ascendant
the other in the tenth house
you shall judge the planet in the Ascendant somewhat of more power
to effect what he is significator of
than he that is in the tenth:
do so in the rest as they stand in order
remembering that planets in angles do more forcibly show their effects.

But houses themselves don't affect anything? Isn't it always, planets in the house which affect? For example, Planets in Angular houses get stronger, faster, more visible, therefore more powerful?
 

david starling

Well-known member
But houses themselves don't affect anything? Isn't it always, planets in the house which affect? For example, Planets in Angular houses get stronger, faster, more visible, therefore more powerful?

How is a Planet in the Fourth House "more visible"? :unsure: it's way below the visible half of the sky.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Not optically, but energetically? :)

Yes, it's a theoretical concept, and it does make sense if you believe that the 4 Angular Houses are about the only Areas of Life that are really important: Self, Home, Partnership, and Career. I see those as "structural", but within that basic framework are other important Areas as well, such as Communication and Education, both Cadent House matters. There's a mindset, a point of view, behind the method.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
A tree without twigs has neither leaves, nor fruit--it's barren.
On the contrary - you're simply grasping at twigs :smile:
fruit grows on branches


Traditional alone has no twigs and only two main trunks,
from which Modern branches grow, and sprout their twigs:
Traditional-Tropical, and Traditional-Vedic.
But it does supply the indispensable roots!
Traditional not only has roots
but also a trunk
and branches
as well as more than sufficient traditionalist twigs :smile:

Traditional has no need of Modernist insignificant twigs
which are simply rebranded, repackaged from Traditional root sources
Traditional uses the original methodology
Modernist is dependent on Traditional roots without which it cannot exist

SIGN PLACEMENT is a Traditional concept - not Modernist

SOLAR REVOLUTION aka SOLAR RETURN
HOUSE RULERS
ASPECTS
Removing those
as well as multiple all other TRADITIONAL techniques
from Modernist astrology
renders Modernist Astrology ridiculous
 

Senecar

Well-known member
Yes, it's a theoretical concept, and it does make sense if you believe that the 4 Angular Houses are about the only Areas of Life that are really important: Self, Home, Partnership, and Career. I see those as "structural", but within that basic framework are other important Areas as well, such as Communication and Education, both Cadent House matters. There's a mindset, a point of view, behind the method.


Aren't Astrological Houses just concepts? They are not physical structure. They are conceptually angular, succedent and cadent. They do not radiate energies, but the planets do?

We hear about planetary energies strong or weak, but never strong houses or weak houses?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

But houses themselves don't affect anything?
Isn't it always, planets in the house which affect?
For example, Planets in Angular houses get stronger,
faster, more visible, therefore more powerful?
Planetary speed, is not affected by House location :smile:
Planets ABOVE THE HORIZON are more visible

In CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY William Lilly writes:

The angles are most powerful
the succeedents are next in virtue
the cadents poor, and of little efficacy:
the succeedent houses follow the angles
the cadents come next after the succeedents.

In force and virtue they stand so in order
: :smile:

1 10 7 4 11 5 9 3 2 8 6 12

The meaning whereof is this
that two planets equally dignified
the one in the Ascendant
the other in the tenth house
you shall judge the planet in the Ascendant somewhat of more power
to effect what he is significator of
than he that is in the tenth:
do so in the rest as they stand in order
remembering that planets in angles do more forcibly show their effects.


Aren't Astrological Houses just concepts?
They are not physical structure.
They are conceptually angular, succedent and cadent.
They do not radiate energies, but the planets do?

We hear about planetary energies strong or weak, but never strong houses or weak houses?
Tropical zodiac is "just a concept"
but you yourself use it


 

Senecar

Well-known member
In CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY William Lilly writes:

The angles are most powerful
the succeedents are next in virtue
the cadents poor, and of little efficacy:
the succeedent houses follow the angles
the cadents come next after the succeedents.

In force and virtue they stand so in order
: :smile:

1 10 7 4 11 5 9 3 2 8 6 12

The meaning whereof is this
that two planets equally dignified
the one in the Ascendant
the other in the tenth house
you shall judge the planet in the Ascendant somewhat of more power
to effect what he is significator of
than he that is in the tenth:
do so in the rest as they stand in order
remembering that planets in angles do more forcibly show their effects.

Yes, planets in Angular houses get strong or weak, but the houses themselves are just concepts? And also planets being visible or invisible - I would rather read it again, as energies - influencial or not influencial. Not optically or visually visible. Astrologers don't observe the planets as such like Astronomers do:)
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yes, planets in Angular houses get strong or weak, but the houses themselves are just concepts?
And also planets being visible or invisible
- I would rather read it again, as energies - influencial or not influencial.
Not optically or visually visible.
Astrologers don't observe the planets as such like Astronomers do:)
MODERNIST astrologers no longer observe the planets :smile:
they simply use software written by others
and
that software calculation often differs
due to the individual opinions of the software writers


HOWEVER
many Traditional astrologers do observe the visible planets and Fixed Stars
for example RUMEN KOLEV
http://www.babylonianastrology.com/


Rumen Kolev also lectures, writes and sells books
and he is an astrologer who writes his own software
http://www.babylonianastrology.com/...&category_id=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1
 

david starling

Well-known member
Planetary speed, is not affected by House location :smile:
Planets ABOVE THE HORIZON are more visible

In CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY William Lilly writes:

The angles are most powerful
the succeedents are next in virtue
the cadents poor, and of little efficacy:
the succeedent houses follow the angles
the cadents come next after the succeedents.

In force and virtue they stand so in order
: :smile:

1 10 7 4 11 5 9 3 2 8 6 12

The meaning whereof is this
that two planets equally dignified
the one in the Ascendant
the other in the tenth house
you shall judge the planet in the Ascendant somewhat of more power
to effect what he is significator of
than he that is in the tenth:
do so in the rest as they stand in order
remembering that planets in angles do more forcibly show their effects.


Tropical zodiac is "just a concept"
but you yourself use it



12 Sidereal Signs of equal length is a concept, as are those of Tropical. Alignment of the Sidereal Signs of equal length, on 12 of 13 constellations that cross the Ecliptic, is a concept, which is why the Ayanamsa varies from one Astrologer to another. The alignment of the Tropical Zodiac is based on precise Astronomically observable phenomena caused by Earth's axial tilt relative to the Ecliptic--the Equinoxes and Soltices--which is why the location of the Tropical Zodiac is entirely agreed upon. Modern Astrologers had to revive the ancient Traditional methods, and did so after Modern Astrology had been flourishing for over a Century.
Traditional Astrology has roots and two trunks, which produced the Modern branches that contain the twigs. In the West, some who are most attracted to the Traditional, Sidereal trunk have been known to denigrate the Traditional, Tropical trunk, for personal reasons. But, both trunks are sturdy, and very capable of supporting and nurturing the Modern branches of Astrology, which, in return, energize the study and practice of Traditional.
Nothing is wrong with "concepts", per se, if they provide useful information.
 
Top