The Nodes take no aspects.

Just wanted to point out that the Moon's Nodes, or any node for that matter, are not actually positions of bodies but points in space and cannot be aspected. They are simply the intersection of the plane of the lunar orbit with respect to the ecliptic. There is nothing there. It is a point in space, albeit probably an important one.

The North Node is the point where the Moon crosses the ecliptic as it moves from South to North, while the point it crosses back to South latitude is the South Node. However, there is nothing there, so there is nothing there to aspect.

The Nodes operate by conjunction only [in my opinion].

Hey Wayne,

Im no expert on astrology yet (i honestly think no one really is, it changes like any science.. also, it is about us and we change so...), but this is how i see it...

Not being of physical structure does not rule out a point as an astrological influence, or as being somehow uninfluenced by the rest of the points because of this reason. The very nature of astrology itself is metaphysical. The ascendent is really nothing but a point, there is nothing there physically (other then the horizen which is based on perspective obviously) or the rest of the houses. However they are considered very important. Lilith and other influcences are hypothetical yet somehow have astrological significance.

BTW y do you say they cannot be aspected yet the conj is an aspect? If you can count the "energies" for being in sync as a conj y could they not be influenced in another way? the aspects are really just the numerological significance of the 360 degree separtation between the points. Also technically everything aspects everything else, just some influences are stronger or percieved as good or bad.. which again is the numerological significance. The planets are just a big clock anyway, it's all numerology (least that's my theory).

I am not attacking you just clearing this up, and if i am wrong someone please suggest otherwise.

I would suggest , based on personal experience that Jupiter squaring the Nodes (<1deg) .... it has it's effect .

Just like any other "part" of the chart ....... it should be read "in conjunction" with the rest of the chart.

Pisceanfool said:

Hey Wayne,

Im no expert on astrology yet (i honestly think no one really is, it changes like any science.. also, it is about us and we change so...), but this is how i see it...

Not being of physical structure does not rule out a point as an astrological influence, or as being somehow uninfluenced by the rest of the points because of this reason. The very nature of astrology itself is metaphysical. The ascendent is really nothing but a point, there is nothing there physically (other then the horizen which is based on perspective obviously) or the rest of the houses. However they are considered very important. Lilith and other influcences are hypothetical yet somehow have astrological significance.

BTW y do you say they cannot be aspected yet the conj is an aspect? If you can count the "energies" for being in sync as a conj y could they not be influenced in another way? the aspects are really just the numerological significance of the 360 degree separtation between the points. Also technically everything aspects everything else, just some influences are stronger or percieved as good or bad.. which again is the numerological significance. The planets are just a big clock anyway, it's all numerology (least that's my theory).

I am not attacking you just clearing this up, and if i am wrong someone please suggest otherwise.

Click to expand...

You make a good point regarding the Ascendent being a point in space. I do not hold that the Ascendent takes aspects either. Both the Moon's Node and the Ascendent are points in space dependent upon the Ecliptic, points in space. Neither are significant except by conjunction.

I do not doubt that the Moon's Node is significant, although I cant find reason to consider that it has a past-life link. Logically, the Moon's tranverse across the Ecliptic would show what Luna will be or what Luna was, but only in relation to present life. So the Nodes would indicate potential and loss of potential, that which you can have in your life and that which will be denied. In one sense I suppose you could argue about fatalism, but then in one sense we are fated anyway.

I should add that shadows such as lillith have no influence, in my opinion, and neither do the asteroids. People who wish to be serious students of astrology should perhaps consider fewer rather than more "influences". It is much easier to predict the past, as so many do today, with a lot of jumble. Stick to using the basic planets, Sun and Moon, Ascendent, MC, Placidus, and all will be seen.

I'll repeat what I wrote on the other thread

Personally I believe points like nodes and ascendant *do* take aspects. However they are not same type of aspects as another planet. Hence the "grand trine" in Marilyn Monroe's chart does not in my opinion exist.

The thing is, planets receive *and* emitt energy. Part of why a grand trine is a grand trine is the 3 energies are transmitted harmoniously through the 3 planets. The energy cycles through the planets in a loop.

Points like the nodes and ascendant only receive energy but do not transmit it. I see points like the nodes and ascendant as like outlets in the chart where energy is released into the outside world. Planetary energy can go to the points and then be released into the outside world but the energy is not going to cycle harmoniously around the node and 3 planets. In Marilyn Monroe's chart the Mars energy will go to the node. But the node is not going to gather the Mars energy and retransmit it to Saturn will it? Hence the closed loop is broken. However the Mars and Saturn energy will harmoniously together activate the node.

Personally I don't think grand trines have anything to do why people become famous or not. I've seen plenty of charts of famous people and there is no correlation between grand trines and fame. As I said before, the inability of astrology to explain fame is one of its greatest weaknesses.

!3*_!un@_!nc*9n!t* said:

Rather Challenging Tone !!

Have you any empirical "evidence" to back your statements ...... or is this a free for all perhaps ??

I would suggest , based on personal experience that Jupiter squaring the Nodes (<1deg) .... it has it's effect .

Just like any other "part" of the chart ....... it should be read "in conjunction" with the rest of the chart.

But you know this !! [scratches head]

Wayne .... your "post" seems to drip ...... perhaps i am reading too much into one post.

Click to expand...

I would wonder what Jupiter squaring the Nodes would have you do ...

I see no reason for aspects to the Nodes to mean anything, and find no empirical evidence to support this. In fact I do hold that the Arabic Part of Fortune is significant - there is definitely something to the POF, but by conjunction only. In the same way the Fixed Stars "work", but by conjunction only. They do not take aspects either.

Yoi said:

I'll repeat what I wrote on the other thread

Personally I believe points like nodes and ascendant *do* take aspects. However they are not same type of aspects as another planet. Hence the "grand trine" in Marilyn Monroe's chart does not in my opinion exist.

The thing is, planets receive *and* emitt energy. Part of why a grand trine is a grand trine is the 3 energies are transmitted harmoniously through the 3 planets. The energy cycles through the planets in a loop.

Points like the nodes and ascendant only receive energy but do not transmit it. I see points like the nodes and ascendant as like outlets in the chart where energy is released into the outside world. Planetary energy can go to the points and then be released into the outside world but the energy is not going to cycle harmoniously around the node and 3 planets. In Marilyn Monroe's chart the Mars energy will go to the node. But the node is not going to gather the Mars energy and retransmit it to Saturn will it? Hence the closed loop is broken. However the Mars and Saturn energy will harmoniously together activate the node.

Personally I don't think grand trines have anything to do why people become famous or not. I've seen plenty of charts of famous people and there is no correlation between grand trines and fame. As I said before, the inability of astrology to explain fame is one of its greatest weaknesses.

Click to expand...

This is a good post I think. I am not quite sure how Nodes gather or transmit, but in essence the Nodes are simply points in space that have no direct influence in themselves. They are passive, weak, and receptive. Perhaps the North Node pushes and the South Node pulls - that would make some sense. I don't know. I do [believe] that they dont take aspects, but if they do they are so weak as to be inconsequential.

Wayne, I agree with some of your points about reducing the clutter, but I disagree with your point about points like the nodes not being able to receive aspects (though I don't believe they can transmit them) because taking it to its logical conclusion two planets cannot aspect each other at all except by conjunction.

It comes down to this - how do two planets form an aspect anyway? There must be some sort of communication between them. They must exchange energy/rays or whatever you want to call it. With two planets they both receive the other's energy and transmit their own. There must be something that carries that energy though in the first place.

That thing carrying the energy can equally be aimed at an "empty" piece of space. If there is nothing there nothing will happen. However if there is something "sensitive" there like a node or ascendant it will "receive" the planetary energy. It won't transmit it back because it can't so it can't form part of an aspect pattern. But it should be able to receive the energy still and be "activated", whether for good or for bad.

wayne penner said:

They are passive, weak, and receptive.

Click to expand...

Exactly. They are receptive to active centers of energy, IE physical manifestations of energy, such as the planets. I wouldn't call them weak, as I've found the nodal returns and oppositions (every 9 years) are quite powerful turning points in one's path. I've seen this in my own chart and those of others.

From the charts I've looked at they are mainly responsive to the quadratures, IE 0, 90 and 180 degrees. Of course a conjunction to one node is an opposition to the other, so I suppose you could say by conjunction or square only The soft aspects and higher octave hard aspects I generally ignore, as there's usually plenty of other more important things to address aside from a nodal configuration of minor importance. This is not a hard rule, however, for example a progression of the angles may activate a usually minor node-planet aspect and actually bring it to the forefront of the native's experience for an acute time period. Outer planet transits can have the same effect, especially if the outer planet rules either node and a lesser dynamic aspect is involved (ie semisquare, inconjunct, etc).

A square to one node is a square to the other, so this is a T-square. One of the more important configuration in a natal chart, a nodal T-square indicates an area of required evolutionary development; the native is compelled to address the issues of the T-squaring planet. The planet is in tension with both the existing self (south) and the self's potential (north).

Well, if we are going to exclude *points* then that would have to include MC, AC and Vertex as well...aspects are only *links* between planets, and points. Obviously some schools of astrology choose to exclude asteroids, nodes etc...but may I remind us all that initially, in the very earliest astrology, the fixed stars/asteroids were given greater significance than most astrologers accord them now.
From my own studies I have experienced the influences of aspects to my natal node, and made by the transiting node...so I include them. Cheers, Lillyjgc

I was wondering, what orbs do people use with the nodes?

Interesting discussion. While wayne is correct [in my opinion], the nodes do not have aspects, he doesnt support why this is so (for what I can see). Nonphysical points (whether thats a node, a star, or the Parts) have no aspects because they do not have light and therefore cannot pass their influence onto other bodies (as influence is passed through the light of the Planet or body). Since they have no bodies they therefore cannot ACCEPT the light from others and therefore no aspects can be made between the bodies and points. Only bodily conjunction has the ability to accept the influence of the point.

very good points, never thought about them being receptive only. I do know that personally the aspects to my asc (mars/pluto tsquare) is defintly in effect. I still dont see how they can be reactive in some way to the vibrations yet not form aspects other then the conj. I also do not think the nodes are a very weak influence. I do not agree with alot of the fatal things with any of astrology, for i believe we are not tied to some destiny not of our making. i don't use the nodes because of the inconsistent interpretations.

honestly though, many astrologers use non physical points in aspects so why would you rule them out? They have proved true for me and people i know. I understand what you guys are saying with only a conj haveing any kind of influence. like i said tho how can it form any aspects if it is so weak? The only reason we use the aspects is because of the numbers of the degrees, separation of our 360 degree perspective. then again maybe it is SO weak that only the strongest influence(conj) applies but i don't believe this is the case. Again, in my own subjective experience this is not true, i feel the aspects of the asc and midheaven for sure(unless they are some other influence). the very fact that they can play a role being only a point makes me think they are very powerful.

As much as we would all love to be correct... astrology is very much based on each students own experience and own personal methods of interpretation. How can you be so sure you are correct? This is not a very absolute subject at all. It's so unpredictable and.. well... not absolute that it fails with the scientific method and is condemned as pseudoscience for a reason. No one really knows/has proven how astrology even works, how do we know what makes a point or planet valid or not? purley observation, which has proven true for many people to form aspects. so....???

Also i do agree it is silly to try and include the astroids and some other objects, they find more everyday. Pluto is jsut part of an astroid belt, there may be other bodies that influence us in ways we don't know. Amature astronomers find and name astroides all the time. this kind of knowlegde is very new, we are learning alot right now about the physical universe.

BTW astro.teacher, you classify a star as non-physical and having no light? You mean photons i suppose and as far as i know stars are the primary source of photons, and defintly physical. "Nonphysical points (whether thats a node, a star, or the Parts) have no aspects because they do not have light". if you are speaking of the metaphysical life force Light (maybe there is little or no difference, our chemical energy is based on the Sun's light after all) then i am not knowledgable enough to say much of anything yet. if that IS the case, however, you make a good point.

BTW astro.teacher, you classify a star as non-physical and having no light? You mean photons i suppose and as far as i know stars are the primary source of photons, and defintly physical.

Click to expand...

Traditionally speaking of course .

"Nonphysical points (whether thats a node, a star, or the Parts) have no aspects because they do not have light". if you are speaking of the metaphysical life force Light (maybe there is little or no difference, our chemical energy is based on the Sun's light after all) then i am not knowledgable enough to say much of anything yet. if that IS the case, however, you make a good point.

Click to expand...

This is mainly a traditional philosophical debate but I will clairfy. The fixed stars themselves do not obtained their light from the Sun (as the Ancients understood the light of the Planets comes from that of the Sun) and therefore they cannot produce the beams or rays in which create the aspects between the Planets. As to what this light or the rays are is of course up for (philosophical) debate. However this light is the essense of life and therefore, while it may just be "light", it is also the igniter of life (hence why the Ascendant is placed on the Eastern Horizon and the Sun is considered the Planet of life). As for the rest, they are mainly mathematical points and not physical bodies therefore they do not receive their "life" from the Sun (as all the bodies that make aspect do) but the bodies in which they are apart of. They cannot make aspect because they cannot reflect or receive. Only when conjunction is made at that very spot are they influenced. The conjunction usually must be Partile.

lillyjgc said:

Well, if we are going to exclude *points* then that would have to include MC, AC and Vertex as well...aspects are only *links* between planets, and points. Obviously some schools of astrology choose to exclude asteroids, nodes etc...but may I remind us all that initially, in the very earliest astrology, the fixed stars/asteroids were given greater significance than most astrologers accord them now.
From my own studies I have experienced the influences of aspects to my natal node, and made by the transiting node...so I include them. Cheers, Lillyjgc

Click to expand...

It is most certainly true, and in my opinion unfortunate, that many modern astrologers pay no attention to the Fixed Stars. Just a little experience with them will convince even the most skeptical that the Fixed Stars have considereable "influence" in the birth chart. I must say I have not found the same is true regarding the asteroids. I have an exact Sun Chiron Sextile and I have found absolutely no effect in my life. Philosophically the asteroids don't make sense either.

On the Nodes, and other imaginary points, the Part of Fortune and the MC and Ascendent once again I have no evidence that these take aspects. I also have an exact Grand Trine between Moon, Mars and the North Node (in Aries in the 6th House), but I can't find any justification for this Fire GT in my life other than I like to laugh a lot and explore a lot.

As somebody else pointed out, we should lessen the number of "influences" we find in the chart.

Astro,

I see, you make a very good point indeed. It actually makes a whole lot of sense. The Sun clearly is the center of the solar system and the center of Astrology. The only thing that bothers me is that i can relate to the aspects to my asc and MC personally. Then again maybe i read too much into it and they are not the reasion i relate to thier interpretations.

I think a big problem with the astroids is their symbolic representations are inconsistent, and there has just not been enough observation. People jump the gun assigning meanings and i am hesitant to ever use them in my interpretations. It really seems unnessesary in a way. The planets are enough for you to understand yourself on a new level so why go into all this other stuff like the thousands of astroids that orbit the sun? Astrology is already complicated enough in my opinion. then again... maybe there are things we don't understand at all and other bodies can fill in the gaps (Chiron is probably the only worthwhile object). Either way... you are not your chart and you might as well look at yourself and your life to fill in the gaps (alot of people have your same chart and are very different).

The Sun clearly is the center of the solar system and the center of Astrology.

Click to expand...

The Sun was also the center of traditional Astrology being that the system goes Moon Mercury Venus -Sun- Mars Jupiter Saturn.

The only thing that bothers me is that i can relate to the aspects to my asc and MC personally. Then again maybe i read too much into it and they are not the reasion i relate to thier interpretations.

Click to expand...

I would not look into House cusps as much as I would look into thier LORDS which I find have a far more powerful influence. Lords are the key to Traditional Astrology.

I think a big problem with the astroids is their symbolic representations are inconsistent, and there has just not been enough observation.

Click to expand...

The biggest problem with Asteroids is the fact people name them after mythology and then believe that just because they are named after such their influence becomes such. This is not how the Planets were named. In fact the mythology was created as a poetic tale of the power of the Planets already in existance. The Greeks did not have Zeus before there was Jupiter(the Planet). Zeus was the poetical description of Jupiter and its power and influence on humans.

astro.teacher said:

The biggest problem with Asteroids is the fact people name them after mythology and then believe that just because they are named after such their influence becomes such. This is not how the Planets were named. In fact the mythology was created as a poetic tale of the power of the Planets already in existance. The Greeks did not have Zeus before there was Jupiter(the Planet). Zeus was the poetical description of Jupiter and its power and influence on humans.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem I have with asteroids. There seems to be no consistent rule that can be applied to their supposed "influence". I have tried to address this in other forums but got shouted down by those who would prefer to believe rather than know.

No one seems to be able to argue why asteroids should work. NASA estimates there are at least a million and probably as many as ten million, some no larger than a television set. The problem is, at what size do they no longer have influence. Since they were not formed in the same way the planets were they really are just space debris.

just to add to the mix,
the major asteroids were discovered before neptune and pluto so there has been enough time to evaluate them.personally juno is the only asteriod that has added a significant insight to my chart.but it provided a major answer.it is ridiculous to say that someones else's experience with a asteriod is invalid.

the ecliptic actually does have a physical presence.in the 80s nasa launched a series of satelites,the helios series, to orbit the sun.on one occassion,the cameras where pointed out from the sun instead of toward the sun.the pictures recorded that the ecliptic looked like a "tutu",.ie. a tenous layer of irridescenent "plasma" extending out from the sun at the ecliptic,ad infinitum.

the node is not just a "point" in space,the nodal axis circumscribes the orbital field energy of the moon.without a node the moon would simply be a drifting peice of cosmic debris.

alice bailey,in esoteric astrology,maked a comment that the moon itself is lifeless and that there is a energy behind the moon.

lewellyns A to Z dilineator,staes that aspects to the node are valid.though i'm not sure this comment was kept when the "updated" version was published in the 80s.
wayne's inability to understand the node is a function of his personal limitations and prejudice.as the "classical astrologers" from ancient times on have acknowledged the nodes importance.it true that western astrology does not emphacize the dynamic quality of the node,but vedic astrology gives the nodes at the importance equal to the sun.
some secret societies,such as the rosecrucians,emphacize the node.
the astrologer grant lewi used the nodes extensively
rahu

the major asteroids were discovered before neptune and pluto so there has been enough time to evaluate them.

Click to expand...

A thousand years of observation and evaluation like the other Planets? There is quite a large gap between Babylon (well actually the Sumerians had knowledge of these Planetary bodies) and the Greeks. Thousands of years of observations and discovering influence(not to mention from the Greeks to the Arabians and from the Arabians to the Europeans). Asteroids have at most around 100 years (as Astrology was quite non-existant in the 1800s) therefore I dont believe in that brief time an Astrologer can discover the influence (if they even truely have an influence in the first place.).