Whole Sign cusps

Drsendero

Well-known member
I've read on this forum and in other places that the cusps in WSH are considered "sensitive points." Does this mean that the house's energy is strongest at the cusp or that if a planet is at or near the cusp that its manifestation in the house is stronger than another planet in the house further removed from the cusp?
In other words, what is "sensitive" about the cusps in WSH?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I've read on this forum and in other places that the cusps in WSH are considered "sensitive points." Does this mean that the house's energy is strongest at the cusp or that if a planet is at or near the cusp that its manifestation in the house is stronger than another planet in the house further removed from the cusp?
In other words, what is "sensitive" about the cusps in WSH?
dr. farr explains this best :smile:
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...
 

Drsendero

Well-known member
Thanks Dr. Farr. Your answer brings another question to mind.

Let's say that the cusp is at 29 degrees of a sign/house and there's a planet in the next sign/house, say at 1 degree, so close enough that if it were in the same sign/house that you'd say that the planet's influence on the house would be strengthened. But, being in a different house/sign, would the planet not have anything to say about the affairs of that house with it being so extremely close?
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
A cross-sign/house conjunction: these were technically considered not to be active, but in actual practice they were considered to influence both signs and both houses involved: so, I would answer no to your question, ie, the planet although in a different sign and in a different house, would STILL have an influence with that other sign/house via the conjunctional bridge with the other planet in that other sign/house...
 

Drsendero

Well-known member
OK, so in Western WHS you're saying that a planet on the edge of a sign/house that is not in a conjunction across the boundary, has no influence in the adjoining sign/house.

This then is different from Vedic WSH in which there's a concept called sandhi, a transition zone from one to the other. I've read that for each each sign/house, the transition is the length of a navamsa, 3degrees 20 minutes, for a total of 6 degrees and 40 minutes of transition area (sandhi) across the boundary. Planets in the sandhi are said to be weaker and troublesome, having a harder time expressing themselves than they would if they weren't in a sandhi area.

It's interesting that the two traditions have some different takes on this topic!
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Western tradition accepts that a planet within the last 3 degrees of a sign (some-like me-say, within the last 1 degree of a sign) will influence the following sign; since sign=house in whole sign format, then, the planet in the last 3 (or 1) degree of a house will have an influence (via its orb of influence or effect) into the next house (into the next sign/house)
The sandhi concept, and this one (which goes back at least into early Islamic transitional era times) are essentially the same.

Dispositorship, (lordship, "rulership") though, is unaffected: ie, say Saturn is @ 29 Leo in the 6th whole sign house:
-Saturn will influence the 6th house
-Saturn by its orb will also influence the next house (the 7th house)
-however, since Saturn is still in the sign/house of Leo (@ 29 degrees), Saturn will continue to be disposited exclusively by the Sun
-also (Vedically), although in sandhi, Saturn would continue to have the Sun as its rashi lord, and Saturn;s kakshya position would still be the 8th kakshya of the 6th house.
 

Drsendero

Well-known member
Thanks for the great response, Dr. Farr! You've cleared up some questions about WSH that I hadn't found answers to so far. I'm generally uncomfortable with hard and fast divisions between signs & houses - it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that 29 degrees 59 minutes of Aires is drastically different from 0 degrees 00 minutes of Taurus, for example, especially with the sun and moon since their visible disks are about a degree in diameter, meaning that when these two are crossing a boundary there is a portion of their bodies that is in both signs/houses, so I strongly lean towards acknowledging a transition zone between signs and houses of several degrees. I like knowing that WSH has a tradition of allowing such space, even though some astrologers (such as you apparently) keep that space very small, if at all. I'm more comfortable exploring this house system now. At first, I was a bit skeptical about it, but the more I look at it, especially with a sandhi zone, the more comfortable I am with it.

Thanks,
DrSendero
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
I think the more you experiment with whole sign, the more you will come to value it: that's what happened to me-I had used Placidus for over 30 years, before I first learned about whole sign (in the late 1990's) Experiments with it soon convinced me of its superior overall accuracy. I was later to discover that Jaimini astrology had always used whole sign, right up to the present time (whereas in Parasara-mainstream Vedic-whole sign had been replaced early on by (the closely related) Equal house system, and around the 11th century the quadrant sripati bhava system (almost identical to the Porphyry system of the West) entered the picture (and is very prominent in mainstream Vedic today)...
 

greybeard

Well-known member
Well, Sendero and Farr....

Two professionals discussing astrology

Without being defensive, without proselytizing, a rational discussion, sharing experience and knowledge....

What a pleasure to read you two
Pity more of the threads are not conducted in this tone.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Well, Sendero and Farr....

Two professionals discussing astrology

Without being defensive, without proselytizing, a rational discussion, sharing experience and knowledge....

What a pleasure to read you two
Pity more of the threads are not conducted in this tone.
dr sendero and dr farr are an example for us all :smile:

Ours being predominantly a learning forum, one keeps in mind that many members are not professionals
and simply joined our forum in order to ask questions and enjoy astrological discussion
as well as benefit from advice from more seasoned astrologers
therefore dialogue between members who have little experience/knowledge understandably can be lively
 
Top