Professional astrologers all vary regarding their preferred house systemI generally use Placidus, not because I have a good reason to, but rather because it seems most websites use it by default--so I had always assumed that meant it was the best option. But it seems many astrologers use whole signs and equal signs as well. Googling "which house system is best" gives no helpful results as it seems most people say, "use whichever works best for you" which is not an answer at all, my Mercury, for example, and MC would change signs going from Placidus to whole signs, and I'd like to know which one I should use. Anyone have any straight answers? "Use whichever works best for you" is basically "Make up whatever makes you feel good" and I don't like that. As a beginner it is no help to me to play guessing games, when I'm trying to learn how to read my chart I prefer to be sure I'm not doing anything wrong--important planets moving houses between two systems can make a lot of difference in how I interpret aspects, progressions, etc.
What do most professional astrologers use and why?
Cusps:
Today
(and for the past thousand years or so)
we define cusps as "borders" (coasts),
but that is not the original meaning of the word "cusp":
it means "point"
such as cuspal teeth (bicuspids)
and
the point of a sword
-so originally the term cusp meant the "point" of something,
and in astrology originally the "cusp" of the house meant its "point";
now, when quadrant systems were developed,
this "point" of the house came to mean its "beginning",
which later came to mean its "border",
ie, the "border" between one house and the other.
And later astrology also began using these "borders" (cusps)
for various prognostic applications (Charles Carter came to believe that, for timing of events,
the "cusps" of the Campanus house system gave the best results, among the various quadrant house systems)
But now notice this:
in whole sign the cusps are NOT the 0 degree "borders" of sign/houses at all, and never were so regarded!
In whole sign, the "cusp" retained its original meaning, not as a "border" but rather as A POINT
-and that POINT (cusp) for EACH house,
was the sensitive point of that house,
viz, the sensitive point in whole sign houses
-each house-
that is the "cusp" of each house
-is a direct projection from the ascending degree.
Example:
-the ascending degree of a chart is 18 Taurus:
what are the house cusps (sensitive points, original meaning of the word "cusp") in the whole sign houses of this chart?
Cusp of 1st house = 18 Taurus
Cusp of 2nd house = 18 Gemini
Cusp of 3rd house = 18 Cancer
Cusp of 4th house = 18 Leo
Cusp of 5th house = 18 Virgo
Cusp of 6th house = 18 Libra
Cusp of 7th house = 18 Scorpio
Cusp of 8th house = 18 Sagittarius
Cusp of 9th house = 18 Capricorn
Cusp of 10th house = 18 Aquarius
Cusp of 11th house = 18 Pisces
Cusp of 12th house = 18 Aries
Now it is these "cusps" (sensitive degrees, original meaning of the word "cusp" as a "point")
that are (and were) used for progressions, timing of events, etc,
and the fact is that they work for these purposes, quite well (in expert hands)
Whole sign does not use the BORDERS between houses (always 0 degree of any sign) for anything,
but it DOES use "cusps" (points in the house, projected from the exact ascending degree)
for timing (and other) delineative purposes.
Whole sign suddenly vanished (both in the West and in Vedic astrology) during the same period of time
-ie, late 8th to early 9th century
-this sudden disappearance suggests a sudden turn in astrological thinking and practices,
rather than a gradual supplanting of a less effective traditional method (whole sign) by a new and more effective method
(rheotrius/alchabitius in the West,
and the closely related to whole sign Equal house, in Vedic astrology)
I quite agree with Waybread in the statement, "so what?" (if old time astrologers did or didn't do something)
For me, there is only 1 reason I switched to whole sign
-it worked better (FOR ME)
I could care less if it were the oldest house system (which it is)
or whether it was invented by Badda Bing at Barney's Beanery in Bayonne, 10 years ago:
only things I consider are:
-does it seem to make sense?
-does it "taste good" to me (ie, does it "feel right" to me)
-and, if yes to the above,
does it work (producing delineations and predicitions) better than what I have previously been doing?
Well, whole sign did all that, for me, so I switched;
but I am not going to try to convince anyone of anything about it,
except for beginners
-to you who might just be starting out,
I would say: try whole sign first, and see how well it might work for you...
William Lilly used Regiomontanus HousesOy, if anything I now have more questions (you can see how new I am to this).
If I want accuracy in reading my natal chart (for example if I'm reading the meaning of my Moon sign in it's placement/house or reading my Mercury and what it means in the particular house it's in, i.e.. Mercury in Pisces in the 8th) should I use whole signs then? Since you mentioned houses and cusps and whole signs being better at determining topics (and each house having a topic). Should I believe my Merc is in the 7th (like Placidus says) or 8th (like whole sign)? Should I believe my Moon is in the 4th (Placidus) or 5th (Whole sign).
It's very confusing. Why is placidus so popular?
Why did people change to that and it's pretty much the default if whole sign is the original?
Which on did William Lilly use?
you say you are a beginner, there's no need to make hasty decisionsIt's confusing. To me anyway. Most things in Placidus fit me except my Mercury (this one is debatable though...my Sun in the 8th could be why I feel like my Merc could be in the 8th), and my Midheaven and Fortune (in Placidus they're in 9, which makes little to no sense to me as it doesn't much apply, but in whole sig they're in the 10th, which seems more me).
My Moon is in the 5th in Placidus (and I absolutely love fun and kids, but I also have Leo rising and Uranus and Neptune in the 5th, which are in the 6th in whole sign).
So I'm tore between the two. :/
Exactly, many use Placidus because it's not easy to change a habitI am an amateur in Astrology therefore I can’t offer a professional advice, naturally.
I use Placidus by default (like many others maybe) rather than by conviction, but for the moment that is okay by me.
However I tried whole signs system for my natal chart and I have found this very relevant.
I specify that I have a little more than 40 years old, so there are things I already know about my life and personality.
When we have about 20 to have a large perspective is more difficult (I don’t do ageism, I specify it because in a thread a member complained about that ).
Therefore I am very tempted to use whole signs system, but without dropping Placidus system for the moment
(and also I am used to Placidus for some years, so it isn't easy to drop it).
House system is a difficult issue, that requires to be very patient
I learnt Ibn Ezra (12th century CE) didn't use whole-sign-houses but a "modern system", I don't know which one for the moment. Of course not Placidus system but a house system with cusp and Midheaven.
i personally find that placidus works about 90%, and vedic houses 10%.
vedics are not "kind of contradicting themselves"
vedics are kind of contradicting themselves
by saying that Asc and MC are most important points in chart.
so why dont they use houses from Asc
- as from the first house cusp and from MC like from the 10th house cusp..
that's a matter of individual opinion
vedic houses i think only valuable when interpreting dashas, and looking in divisional charts.