The Nodes take no aspects.
- Thread starter wayne penner
- Start date
wayne penner
Well-known member
I do not denigrate others' experience with astrology, even when dealing with some of the more extreme positions. I have not seen any philosophical or concrete evidence that aspects apply to the nodes of the Moon, which are mathematecal constructs you will accept. By the way I believe A A Bailey in Esoteric Astrology, which is a real bear to read for me anyway, indicated that the Moon hides the esoteric Uranus. Frankly I find esoteric astrology to be bizarre ... astrology as a subject is esoteric so the adjective seems redundant.
On the asteroids, I wonder what is the philosophical basis for their influence? Is it by size, and if so at what size do the million or so that have been catalogued not have effect? As it is there are about 3000 asteroids for every degree of the zodiac. Do they all have influence and if not why not? Perhaps you will see the problem I have with this.
On "casting no rays" of the Fixed Stars Astro Teacher I believe this is was always the position of the ancients. Only recently have some of those who use them started talking about aspects to the Stars. I am inclined to think that declination matters rather more than magnitude when using thew Fixed Stars.
On the asteroids, I wonder what is the philosophical basis for their influence? Is it by size, and if so at what size do the million or so that have been catalogued not have effect? As it is there are about 3000 asteroids for every degree of the zodiac. Do they all have influence and if not why not? Perhaps you will see the problem I have with this.
On "casting no rays" of the Fixed Stars Astro Teacher I believe this is was always the position of the ancients. Only recently have some of those who use them started talking about aspects to the Stars. I am inclined to think that declination matters rather more than magnitude when using thew Fixed Stars.
Last edited by a moderator:
astro.teacher
Well-known member
Rahu,
I am a Traditional Astrologer, thus I follow the traditional system. I see no need for uranus neptune or pluto or any other additions to Astrology. The Traditional system (in my opinion) is a complete system which allows every aspect of life to be answered under it(in fact ive never been asked a question that couldnt have been answered by traditional astrology) therefore I see no need to add such points. But this is my personal opinion based on my experience in Traditional Astrology so I dont assume others follow it. You can read more of that here if you are interested;
http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Chap4-2.html
I am a Traditional Astrologer, thus I follow the traditional system. I see no need for uranus neptune or pluto or any other additions to Astrology. The Traditional system (in my opinion) is a complete system which allows every aspect of life to be answered under it(in fact ive never been asked a question that couldnt have been answered by traditional astrology) therefore I see no need to add such points. But this is my personal opinion based on my experience in Traditional Astrology so I dont assume others follow it. You can read more of that here if you are interested;
http://www.antiquus-astrology.com/Chap4-2.html
I'm not sure how Uranus, Neptune and Pluto got into this discussion. I have a question that bears directly on this topic, I think.astro.teacher said:
In another topic we have been discussing two different ways of computing the nodes of the moon.
One uses the mean mode.
The other uses the "true node".
I won't comment on aspects to the nodes other than to clarify that I believe we all consider a conjunction to be an aspect, and I believe you do pay attention to planets that are conjunct this "point".
Now, if I'm not incorrect, the way of computing the node can change a conjunction to the node by a degree of more.
So the choice of mean nodes or true nodes would be important.
g
SunMoonStar
Active member
Well if you're using the reasoning that you can't aspect Nodes and such because theyre just "points in space"... then transits would become nullified as well because when a transit to your natal occurs, its not aspecting the actual planet from when you were born (because that planet is no longer there), its aspecting the "point in space" the planet occupied at your time of birth.
astro.teacher
Well-known member
Gear,
I always go with mean nodes rather than true. Mean nodes are always traveling in a retrograde motion where as true nodes have the ability to be direct or retrograde because they are based of the Moons wobble. I guess its up to the individual in this case whichever they find more accurate.
SunMoonStar,
And that "point in space" is your body, for you contain inside yourself your Natal chart. Transit influences are a little difficult to explain. However its important to remember that most transits themselves ARE nullified when they arent supported by Directions or SR charts. They have little to no effect without support and are quite useless. The modern phenomenon of using transits in prediction is mainly based off of Modern Astrologers lack of ability to use other predictive charts and therefore solely they rely on Transits (which show very little). The Sun passes by the same location every year in your chart but doesnt bring the same effects because its not always supported. You bring up a good point though.
I always go with mean nodes rather than true. Mean nodes are always traveling in a retrograde motion where as true nodes have the ability to be direct or retrograde because they are based of the Moons wobble. I guess its up to the individual in this case whichever they find more accurate.
SunMoonStar,
And that "point in space" is your body, for you contain inside yourself your Natal chart. Transit influences are a little difficult to explain. However its important to remember that most transits themselves ARE nullified when they arent supported by Directions or SR charts. They have little to no effect without support and are quite useless. The modern phenomenon of using transits in prediction is mainly based off of Modern Astrologers lack of ability to use other predictive charts and therefore solely they rely on Transits (which show very little). The Sun passes by the same location every year in your chart but doesnt bring the same effects because its not always supported. You bring up a good point though.
astro.teacher
Well-known member
gear,
I believe its a little more than that. True node simply takes in account the wobble of the Moon which CAN place it a degree ahead of the Mean method. You make a good point however the margin of difference isnt that significant so personally, as you, I have no strong feelings towards either. I just naturally use the mean node. Maybe in the case of conjunction as you mentioned the true node may be better suited to know exactly the placement but other than that I dont see any other purpose (since it only moves a degree or less (if that)). Most of my charts dont even change. Splitting hairs? probably.
I believe its a little more than that. True node simply takes in account the wobble of the Moon which CAN place it a degree ahead of the Mean method. You make a good point however the margin of difference isnt that significant so personally, as you, I have no strong feelings towards either. I just naturally use the mean node. Maybe in the case of conjunction as you mentioned the true node may be better suited to know exactly the placement but other than that I dont see any other purpose (since it only moves a degree or less (if that)). Most of my charts dont even change. Splitting hairs? probably.
lillyjgc
Senior Member, Educational board Editor
Astro teacher, at the moment the mean node is assessed as 3.49 pisces or thereabouts. The *true node,*at 5 deg something/..
Now I'm not notpicking, but apparently William Lilly made the assertion somewhere (and I can't find it, anyone?) that a horary chart is not fit to be read if one of the significators is at the same degree as the node.
When I drew up a horary chart the other day, the sun was at 3 deg and the node, according to my astro program at 3 deg, thus rendering the chart unfit to be read.But if the *true* node is used, the chart is fit to be read. So which one do I use? William Lilly probably used the *true* node, but does anyone know for sure?
Thanks. lillyjgc
Now I'm not notpicking, but apparently William Lilly made the assertion somewhere (and I can't find it, anyone?) that a horary chart is not fit to be read if one of the significators is at the same degree as the node.
When I drew up a horary chart the other day, the sun was at 3 deg and the node, according to my astro program at 3 deg, thus rendering the chart unfit to be read.But if the *true* node is used, the chart is fit to be read. So which one do I use? William Lilly probably used the *true* node, but does anyone know for sure?
Thanks. lillyjgc
The motion of the Moon's Mean Node is retrograde through the zodiac at the rate of roughly one degree every 19 days (compare the 19 year cycle of lunation). I should clarify here that the Moon's Mean Node is always retrograde, but the True Node oscillates according to the Moon's "wobble". This is caused by the gravitational effects of the Earth/Moon interaction, so the True Node sometimes has periods of direct motion. These periods of direct motion are considered unfortunate, as they go against the "natural motion" of the nodes. The Mean Node averages this "wobble" out, so giving a clearer picture.lillyjgc said:
And this:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/amoon-nodes.htm
Based on this, I think we are perfectly justified in using either one. My guess—only a guess—is that Lilly was using the mean, as it is likely that modern computational methods were not nearly as precise then.
Lack of precision (largely cause by lack of telescopes) made it impossible for astronomers to observe something called "motion parallax" when viewing stars, and this was the mean reason they did not immediately conclude the that Sun is in the center of things, not the earth.
Explaining <but with Micky Mouse's Sorcerer's Hat on>,
g
I have over 40+ years of experience.
The nodes, ASC and cusp are all points, even the natal planets are really point since they have left their positions. Yet, they all can be activated by a transit.
Six months to a year of watching Mars travel around your own chart will prove it, they points function with aspects.
I use the Mean Lunar Nodes, not the True Nodes.
The nodes, ASC and cusp are all points, even the natal planets are really point since they have left their positions. Yet, they all can be activated by a transit.
Six months to a year of watching Mars travel around your own chart will prove it, they points function with aspects.
I use the Mean Lunar Nodes, not the True Nodes.
I agree with most of what you say, but I rely on the equal house method rather than Placidus, although I started out with Placidus. No one has or can adequately explain how to read a chart of a person born far North or South of the Equator. The houses are a mess, and house lines often fall very close together in a bundle. People do live and are born in these locations. One Astrologer (self-identified as one) "Oh well, when you get such an absurd house structure in those cases just use the equal house. How ridiculous. If an equal house works there it will work everywhere. All anyone with minimal knowledge can go to www.astro.com and see what those charts look like. If that does not make one a believer in the equal house system house then nothing ever will. Some folks just cannot change upon discovering their error.
Humanitarian
Well-known member
Based on my experiences with my natal aspects with North Node: Uranus sextile North Node, Jupiter, Neptune, Chiron semisextile North Node, Moon square NN and SN, etc, the Nodes don't take aspects physically but do take aspects astrologically
FraterAC
Well-known member
In my experience, and much to my surprise, the Moon's Nodes DO take aspects, by progression and transit, and they are appropriate to events.
I wasn't expecting it, and my sources did not say so, but there it is.
People may disagree (as if that could ever happen around here) but that is my experience.
I wasn't expecting it, and my sources did not say so, but there it is.
People may disagree (as if that could ever happen around here) but that is my experience.
Here is my view of Astrology. Astrology is a language and the signs, houses, planets, equal house cusps etc are parts of speech of that language. The physical planets do not in and of themselves cause any effects They are telling a story much as if an announcer of a sporting event is merely describing the happenings. The announcer does not cause what is happening on the playing field but only describes what is happening there. I think that this is somewhat consistent with Karl Jung's theory of synchronicity. This means that there are meaningful acausal events that are tied together in some universal net. It is much more than a coincidence, but neither of the two or more synchronized events causes one another, and yet they are tied together in some mysterious way, and they tell a meaningful story.
I do not know if part of this language involves asteroids or other bodies other that are other than the Moon through Pluto. If the minor bodies may have some effect it is far too complicated and of such a small effect that one is probably wasting valuable time in trying to understand any such effects. Astrology is a difficult language to learn and the words of this language are often very subtle and the meaning of the words is often cloaked in ambiguity, and the true story must be judged in the context of many variables. One could dive into the rabbit hole if too many variables are put on the table. Using signs, houses, aspects, planets and some points like the Ascendant and the following equal house cusps can tell a fairly accurate account of what is, was and will be. If the language is well understood.
I was driven to understand Astrology many years ago to know myself. I had the good fortune to find a most knowledgeable Astrologer as a young man who revealed things about my past, present and future that astounded me. I disregarded some of the things he told me about my birth at the time and only discovered to be true years later. At some point in my studies, I understood how he arrived at his readings and that was when I became sure of the truth of Astrology.
I have no desire to convince anyone of the accuracy of my beliefs. We all must go our way according to our charts and strength of will. I think that man will eventually free himself from the bonds of his chart. Some sooner than later. When we do we will have found true freedom.
I do not know if part of this language involves asteroids or other bodies other that are other than the Moon through Pluto. If the minor bodies may have some effect it is far too complicated and of such a small effect that one is probably wasting valuable time in trying to understand any such effects. Astrology is a difficult language to learn and the words of this language are often very subtle and the meaning of the words is often cloaked in ambiguity, and the true story must be judged in the context of many variables. One could dive into the rabbit hole if too many variables are put on the table. Using signs, houses, aspects, planets and some points like the Ascendant and the following equal house cusps can tell a fairly accurate account of what is, was and will be. If the language is well understood.
I was driven to understand Astrology many years ago to know myself. I had the good fortune to find a most knowledgeable Astrologer as a young man who revealed things about my past, present and future that astounded me. I disregarded some of the things he told me about my birth at the time and only discovered to be true years later. At some point in my studies, I understood how he arrived at his readings and that was when I became sure of the truth of Astrology.
I have no desire to convince anyone of the accuracy of my beliefs. We all must go our way according to our charts and strength of will. I think that man will eventually free himself from the bonds of his chart. Some sooner than later. When we do we will have found true freedom.