Stuck in a Conundrum!

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Alternatively, shine an imaginary white spot light onto an imaginary sphere. The imaginary beam of bright white light from the imaginary spot light illuminates a circular portion of the imaginary sphere.

Furthermore, suppose the imaginary sphere is planet Earth, and an imaginary person is standing in the center of the spotlight - under those circumstances then, that "spot" of bright white light is illustrative of what that observer experiences as their “local horizon” Suppose you could pick up that "spot" of light and flatten it and view it from the side... then it would look like "a straight line"... it's all relative:smile:
 
Last edited:

SniperBomber328

Well-known member
I read that link - it does not connect with what I'm quoting from chaldean astrology - it would have clearly mentioned "comes forth before the sun" instead of:

If a child is born when the moon has come forth, (then his life will be) bright, excellent, regular and long.
If a child is born when Jupiter has come forth, (then his life will be) regular, well; he will become rich, he will grow old, (his) days will be long.
"If a child is born when Venus has come forth, (then his life will be) exceptionally calm; wherever he may go, it will be favorable; his days will be long.

and

The Greek word horoscopos literally means: "I watch that which is rising" Originally the word was not used to refer to the whole planetary pattern at the moment of birth, as it is today, but only to the point of the zodiac rising over the horizon at the exact moment of birth. The idea is that, at birth, the infant is submitted to the influence of the constellation that is also being born.
. If what your saying is true then I am terrified. My Jupiter and Venus are "coming forth" as the above statement states. Since my Sun is 2 degrees above my AC. So in Placidus that would be the 12th, but in whole sign, the 1st.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
. If what your saying is true then I am terrified. My Jupiter and Venus are "coming forth" as the above statement states. Since my Sun is 2 degrees above my AC. So in Placidus that would be the 12th, but in whole sign, the 1st.

Sniper, I don't understand why Carris' post would make you terrified. Do you have a chart somewhere? You have said that you have Jupiter and Venus "coming forth" and that quote above says nothing negative about this.

Sun 2* above the ASC, in the same sign would yes be in the 1st, and in sect, where as Sun 2* below the ASC would still be in 1st, but out of sect. See how there can be differences in delineating the condition of the planets, even when using whole sign?
 

tsmall

Premium Member
The Greek word horoscopos literally means: "I watch that which is rising" Originally the word was not used to refer to the whole planetary pattern at the moment of birth, as it is today, but only to the point of the zodiac rising over the horizon at the exact moment of birth. The idea is that, at birth, the infant is submitted to the influence of the constellation that is also being born.

Carris, I meant to comment on this earlier. What you have said here I agree with, but if you were to go outside at the moment of birth, and be able to look at the ascending stars, and see the constellation that is ascending on the horizon, most times it would not correspond with the tropical rising sign. I don't mean to divert the thread any farther than it already has been, but it is a point to make. The constellations are not any longer associated with the tropical signs, unless you use/consider the fixed stars in your delineations.
 

SniperBomber328

Well-known member
Sniper, I don't understand why Carris' post would make you terrified. Do you have a chart somewhere? You have said that you have Jupiter and Venus "coming forth" and that quote above says nothing negative about this.

Sun 2* above the ASC, in the same sign would yes be in the 1st, and in sect, where as Sun 2* below the ASC would still be in 1st, but out of sect. See how there can be differences in delineating the condition of the planets, even when using whole sign?

Carris, I meant to comment on this earlier. What you have said here I agree with, but if you were to go outside at the moment of birth, and be able to look at the ascending stars, and see the constellation that is ascending on the horizon, most times it would not correspond with the tropical rising sign. I don't mean to divert the thread any farther than it already has been, but it is a point to make. The constellations are not any longer associated with the tropical signs, unless you use/consider the fixed stars in your delineations.

I meant terrified in the sense that "if such things" i.e what Carris has written be true, the idea of such things terrify me, not necessarily in a negative fashion.

Laugh out loud on the second bolded red area; hasn't the thread diverted far from my beginning post (which I don't mind, so if any moderator comes and views a/the post(s), please don't move it/them)? Nonetheless, I feel as if the posts are very helpful to those who want to know more about anything being said here. So thanks to everyone.

P.S. My Sun is in the same sign as my AC, but rises before my AC so therefore in sect as tsmall has suggested. Despite that, my Jupiter rises before my Sun, but is conjunct. my AC nonetheless. My Venus also rises before my Sun and is less than 30* from my AC, which I guess is sort of "coming forth" when compared to Jupiter who is "coming forth". Thanks everyone for all the posts, they are very insightful.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Later Hellenist (and also Islamic transitional era) authorities considered that the superior planets are "best off" when rising ahead of the Sun (ie, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) and that the inferior planets (Venus, Mercury, Moon) are "best off" rising after the Sun (these considerations being SEPERATE from the issue of sect)
 

Carris

Well-known member
But Dr Farr, when the planets are rising just before the sun (or near about the sun) they are at their farthest from the earth (thats why combust is considered weak) except of course mercury and venus which can be in front of the sun. So why should planets be "best off" when rising ahead of the sun? When they are almost at their farthest from the earth? See the attached drawing.



Sandstone wrote this on the "What happens when you have no recorded birth time?" thread

"further to moog's comment, one can run a chart off any point in the chart, not just the moon.. a popular one that gets used when no time of birth is available is sun as the ascendant.. this produces solar houses which have a lot of merit.. also, the sun is a natural first house candidate as the most common time of the day for a person to be born is close to sunrise... i like working with solar houses even when i know the birth time as i find the information helpful for understanding the chart better.. in 2 of the examples i used on the 12th house thread, madoff has saturn in solar 12th, while dsk has mars and moon in solar 12th.. these positions are an interesting backdrop if you know much about the lives of these people.."

In Madoff's case, saturn in his solar 12th would be at almost at its furthest point from earth and maybe that is why Madoff had no sense of honor and responsibility. Similarly Mars in dsk's solar 12th would be at its furthest and therefore caused dsk to be a coward and a bully.
 
Last edited:

Carris

Well-known member
In the example you give of your own Saturn in Gemini it is 20* above the ASC, and so in the 12th by sign and cadent by angularity. However, Saturn is said to joy in the 12th.

Yes definitely saturn joys in the 12th because saturn is all about discipline, responsibility, austerity, moderation, hard work, a higher purpose, a greater good, which is what comes naturally to the 12th house...

The 12th house is that of gentlemen - being considerate, compassionate, spiritual, selfless, wanting to be of help and service, patient, tolerant, well-spoken, well-bred, gentle, patient, kind, helpful, tactful, etc. This quiet, well-bred gentleman is seen by loud, crass, vulgar, materialistic people as being "hidden" or invisible. The 12th is not hidden and planets in the 12th are not hidden, they just become gentlemen themselves - thats all.

All the planets in the 12th are affected by this "gentlemanly" quality of the 12th - even mars. A gentleman goes out of his way to be good to others - even if this means inconvenience to himself - the selfish material world unfortunately sees this as a foolish, self destructive thing. This gentleman (with high morals, principles, ethics, values) gets depressed when he sees the ill-bred, selfish, superficial, corrupt behavior of the world - and thus might want solitude and isolation - or to concentrate on his work and service to mankind.

I am very happy with my 12th saturn.

SniperBomber

Your sun, jupiter and venus rising causes the qualities of these planets to be harnessed and channeled towards the good of all. Planets in the Gauquelin 12th harness qualities of the planets for goodness eg. Mars' energy, aggression, impatience and dynamism is channelled for the benefit and service of mankind as doctors, surgeons, sports persons, military people, business executives. The discipline, patience, structure, depth, caution, responsibility, stability, patience of saturn is harnessed to make scientists and physicians that serve mankind.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Right, but it is a matter of degree: a planet say 20 degrees ahead of the Sun is not combust, even by the exaggerated combustion orbs applied by the ancients. They considered a superior planet NOT IN COMBUSTION, but rising ahead of the Sun, to be a dignity for that planet, and for an inferior planet NOT IN COMBUSTION, rising after the Sun, to be a dignity for that planet. These were Hellenist and Islamic-transitional era doctrines, which were then also connected with the concept of sect, along with other considerations, in coming to a determination of the net dignity/debility of the planets.

I myself, do not credit these doctrines: even regarding the question of sect, I consider it to be a minor issue; in my own thoughts regarding these matters I have been influenced more by Modernist concepts; here I am merely describing the oldtime doctrines regarding how dignities/debilities relative to a planet's relationship with the Sun, were considered in the oldtime literature. prior to around the 14th century.


(Note: regarding the 12th house in Vedic astrology, this house was/is considered primarily the house of expenditures, both regarding money and personal efforts/energies, events causing expenditures of $ or effort or energy; and also as a house of liberation, renunciation, obtaining release, obtaining freedom; and the ramifications of such expenditures of energy, or time, or money, upon the individual; by and large, the Vedic understanding of 12th house significations is not as generally negativistic as concepts regarding this house as developed through the Western astrological tradition over the centuries)
 
Last edited:

sandstone

Banned
carris,

thanks for sharing the pic of your chart.. that is informative..

i find it tricky to have a conversation with you, but at any rate i would like to comment on some of the loose ideas that are rolling around on the floor of the conversation here and see if i can pick up some stuff off the floor while i am at it..

planetary strength by phase is an interesting concept that has to be given consideration.. i think it has to be done within context of the rest of the insight we might be able to get off a chart too though.. in the example on madoff that i provided, saturn by phase is indeed strong - in the solar 12th to sun, but remember that saturn is in the sign aries which presents a bit of a problem as this is not a favourable sign position for saturn to fulfill many of the fine qualities it is capable of.. instead one is more likely tempted to take a strongly individualistic path that may clash with the values and rules of the society they find themselves living within, which is one way to think of how madoff lived.. strong by planetary phase, while weak by sign might then be thought to strengthen a situation not all the favourable in the long run - which is truly a saturn concept if there was one -in the ''long run'', lol...

the example of dsk is again a good example with this concept of planetary phase, as on the one hand mars would be strong in the solar 12th in the sign aries as well and we see a person who has been accused and/or up on a few different sexual predator type charges while managing to break free of them up to a point.. one would need to look to another part of the chart to get a better grip on the overall motivations of dsk, but the moon in the solar 12th is not a position of planetary phase strength here as i mentioned in the previous thread, the moon is an exception and is in the final phase just prior to a new moon here.. being in the sign aries doesn't open the person up to a consideration of others feelings so much, nor does the planetary phase strengthen the moon any in this position which seems fairly apparent in what appears to be a pronounced insensitivity of dsk to others, women in particular which could be well represented by this same moon position..

now where were we?

please think about giving a link to the many quotes you grab and share without offering a connection back to the source so others can follow the information flow more easily.. also consider sharing links when you are quoting from various sources to help everyone appreciate more of the nuances that are often needed to appreciate what it is you are graciously sharing.. thanks.
 
Last edited:

Carris

Well-known member
carris,

thanks for sharing the pic of your chart.. that is informative..

i find it tricky to have a conversation with you, but at any rate i would like to comment on some of the loose ideas that are rolling around on the floor of the conversation here and see if i can pick up some stuff off the floor while i am at it..

planetary strength by phase is an interesting concept that has to be given consideration.. i think it has to be done within context of the rest of the insight we might be able to get off a chart too though.. in the example on madoff that i provided, saturn by phase is indeed strong - in the solar 12th to sun, but remember that saturn is in the sign aries which presents a bit of a problem as this is not a favourable sign position for saturn to fulfill many of the fine qualities it is capable of.. instead one is more likely tempted to take a strongly individualistic path that may clash with the values and rules of the society they find themselves living within, which is one way to think of how madoff lived.. strong by planetary phase, while weak by sign might then be thought to strengthen a situation not all the favourable in the long run - which is truly a saturn concept if there was one -in the ''long run'', lol...

the example of dsk is again a good example with this concept of planetary phase, as on the one hand mars would be strong in the solar 12th in the sign aries as well and we see a person who has been accused and/or up on a few different sexual predator type charges while managing to break free of them up to a point.. one would need to look to another part of the chart to get a better grip on the overall motivations of dsk, but the moon in the solar 12th is not a position of planetary phase strength here as i mentioned in the previous thread, the moon is an exception and is in the final phase just prior to a new moon here.. being in the sign aries doesn't open the person up to a consideration of others feelings so much, nor does the planetary phase strengthen the moon any in this position which seems fairly apparent in what appears to be a pronounced insensitivity of dsk to others, women in particular which could be well represented by this same moon position..

now where were we?

please think about giving a link to the many quotes you grab and share without offering a connection back to the source so others can follow the information flow more easily.. also consider sharing links when you are quoting from various sources to help everyone appreciate more of the nuances that are often needed to appreciate what it is you are graciously sharing.. thanks.
This is the link http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_04_1_muller.pdf
The quote is on page 93-94

"It is immediately conceivable that there are, above all, two instants suitable for worship of the celestial body: the eagerly anticipated rise on the eastern horizon and the culminating point of its course. In the interpretations by the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians, the risings of the planets are mentioned again and again: "If a child is born while Venus is rising, his life will be quiet, rich, wherever he goes he will be loved, he will live long . . ." (Gundel, 1933). "If a child is born at the instant of Jupiter rising and Mars setting, he will be lucky and will see the fall of his enemy" (Shulman, 1978). The historians of astrology unanimously point out that rise, and increasingly with the Greeks also culmination, were considered to be the most important positions in the planets' diurnal motion (Boll, Bezold, Gundel, 1966, p. 154; Henseling, 1924, p. 76; van der Waerden, 1966, p. 75). According to Plato, who believed the celestial bodies to be the visible gods, the gods were filled with a special joy at the instant of the planets' rise, at culmination point in midheaven, as well as upon meeting a planet with whom they were
"on friendly terms" (Gundel, 1966).
The importance of culmination can also be concluded from reports on the Sabian sect, which developed in the third century from the late-Babylonian astral-religion in the cultural realm of Islam (Bousset, 1973) and continued to exist for centuries. An islamic scholar, Dimeschqui (1265-1 327), reports the following (cited according to Chwolsohn, 1856):

 
Last edited:

Anachiel

Well-known member
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Since you quoted my post, I assume you are referring to what I wrote? As I said when I replied to Carris, I am still a new student, but since Carris' question was directed to me I wanted to do my best to reply.

No, no, we're fine. Thank you for the reply. I was not pointing at you but rather to the topic. Sorry for the confusion there. :)

So, after all these wonderful posts and explanations we now know that:

1) Whole signs is not a house system. It simply starts each house, including the ASC, at the 0 degree of each sign. The actual portion of the 1st house we know as the ASC is actually under the earth and becomes a "sensitive point" or sensitive degree in each house

2) Equal houses is a house system proper and dispensed with the Whole Sign ambiguity and shows the actual ASC as the 1st house and then each house therafter is numbered the same degree.

3) It is possible that "coming forth" dealt with heliacal rising and possibly is not a 1st/12th house issue.

4) Whole signs were used in a specific place and time with a specific method and now by Vedic astrologers who perfected the technique as well as those re-discovering the Greek methods.

5) Whole Signs, and correct me here, is apparently, originally, a SIDEREAL technique. But, as Western astrology tends to be Tropical, I can see some confusion here trying to convert it over....not sure on this yet......this is just a thought....

6) There is a natural evolution of house systems throughout time; as people became more versed with the movemetns of the heavens and earth and their math subsequently evolved as well, we can see these views applied to the house systems themselves in atrology.

Note that in the eary days a Whole Sign was apparently the best they had. Heck! If I was stranded on an island with no Table of Houses I would probably have to use Whole Signs, too lacking any spherical geometry in said condition to calculate anything more specific for interstitial houses.

However, as people and math advances, we see this applied to the division of the chart which more accurately reflected, perceptually, the division of the heavens as well and, with them, an era and system of astrology to match.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
No, no, we're fine. Thank you for the reply. I was not pointing at you but rather to the topic. Sorry for the confusion there. :)
:cool:

So, after all these wonderful posts and explanations we now know that:

1) Whole signs is not a house system. It simply starts each house, including the ASC, at the 0 degree of each sign. The actual portion of the 1st house we know as the ASC is actually under the earth and becomes a "sensitive point" or sensitive degree in each house

I don't think that's quite right. Whole signs is a house system as we know them today. In whole signs, house = place = sign. Perhaps you could consider it to be the earliest form of house system, but I don't think that's right either, since I think there was an earlier system. But I'm not quite the ancients scholar some of the others here are. :smile: A quick look at Valens, who used whole signs, shows the names of the twelve places. Since earlier in his writings he referred to the signs as signs, the places are I assume what we call houses. The list he gives looks very much like what we associate with each house today.

The acual portion of the 1st house we know as the ASC is the exact degree that was rising on the horizon (emerging from under the earth, if you will) at the moment of birth. Maybe it's semantics, since we can often use words to mean more than one thing. The ascendant is a point, similar to say the PoF, that is contained within the 1st house. It just doesn't mark the boarder of the 1st house. Sometimes we hear/say that the asecendant is the first house, or that the mid heaven is the 10th house and use these ideas interchangeably. With systems that start the houses at these angles, that can make sense. With whole signs this isn't the case, but the ASC is always the ASC, and has the same meaning.

2) Equal houses is a house system proper and dispensed with the Whole Sign ambiguity and shows the actual ASC as the 1st house and then each house therafter is numbered the same degree.

Yes, but I still don't think whole sign is really ambiguous. :joyful:

3) It is possible that "coming forth" dealt with heliacal rising and possibly is not a 1st/12th house issue.

4) Whole signs were used in a specific place and time with a specific method and now by Vedic astrologers who perfected the technique as well as those re-discovering the Greek methods.

I think you are right about number 3, and mostly right about number 4. :smile: I'm not sure though that whole signs must be/were used with a specific method. Ever have astrologers disagreed on the methods...:wink:

5) Whole Signs, and correct me here, is apparently, originally, a SIDEREAL technique. But, as Western astrology tends to be Tropical, I can see some confusion here trying to convert it over....not sure on this yet......this is just a thought....

Sidereal maybe in that I think it is older than tropical, though I believe that at the height of the Hellenistic influence there was little difference between the two. I also think that most western astrologers today who use whole signs are using the tropical zodiac. So one doesn't negate the validity of the other, ie whole signs isn't dependant on the sidereal zodiac.

6) There is a natural evolution of house systems throughout time; as people became more versed with the movemetns of the heavens and earth and their math subsequently evolved as well, we can see these views applied to the house systems themselves in atrology.

Note that in the eary days a Whole Sign was apparently the best they had. Heck! If I was stranded on an island with no Table of Houses I would probably have to use Whole Signs, too lacking any spherical geometry in said condition to calculate anything more specific for interstitial houses.

However, as people and math advances, we see this applied to the division of the chart which more accurately reflected, perceptually, the division of the heavens as well and, with them, an era and system of astrology to match.

Maybe, but just reading Valens I'm not sure that the case can be made that it was mathmatical advances that caused the house systems to evolve. It was all math, and quite complicated.
 

Carris

Well-known member
This is the link http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_04_1_muller.pdf
The quote is on page 93-94

"It is immediately conceivable that there are, above all, two instants suitable for worship of the celestial body: the eagerly anticipated rise on the eastern horizon and the culminating point of its course. In the interpretations by the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians, the risings of the planets are mentioned again and again: "If a child is born while Venus is rising, his life will be quiet, rich, wherever he goes he will be loved, he will live long . . ." (Gundel, 1933). "If a child is born at the instant of Jupiter rising and Mars setting, he will be lucky and will see the fall of his enemy" (Shulman, 1978). The historians of astrology unanimously point out that rise, and increasingly with the Greeks also culmination, were considered to be the most important positions in the planets' diurnal motion (Boll, Bezold, Gundel, 1966, p. 154; Henseling, 1924, p. 76; van der Waerden, 1966, p. 75). According to Plato, who believed the celestial bodies to be the visible gods, the gods were filled with a special joy at the instant of the planets' rise, at culmination point in midheaven, as well as upon meeting a planet with whom they were "on friendly terms" (Gundel, 1966).
The importance of culmination can also be concluded from reports on the Sabian sect, which developed in the third century from the late-Babylonian astral-religion in the cultural realm of Islam (Bousset, 1973) and continued to exist for centuries. An islamic scholar, Dimeschqui (1265-1 327), reports the following (cited according to Chwolsohn, 1856):

These words rise on the eastern horizon and the culminating point of its course, planets' diurnal motion and planets' rise, at culmination point in midheaven, are about houses and Asc and MC. It is not about heliacal rising.

"3) It is possible that "coming forth" dealt with heliacal rising and possibly is not a 1st/12th house issue." - It does not really seem possible - there is no ambiguity in the quote above.
 
Last edited:

tsmall

Premium Member
These words rise on the eastern horizon and the culminating point of its course, planets' diurnal motion and planets' rise, at culmination point in midheaven, are about houses and Asc and MC. It is not about heliacal rising.

"3) It is possible that "coming forth" dealt with heliacal rising and possibly is not a 1st/12th house issue." - It does not really seem possible - there is no ambiguity in the quote above.

Since the quote above does not mention houses at all, I think it is more than possible, especially given that the Sumerians and the Babylonians weren't working with houses, and that when working with whole signs the way the Greeks did, the MC did not define the 10th house. The MC can be found in the 9th, 10th and 11th houses, and I believe at higher lattitudes even the 8th and 12th. Culminating means highest point in the sky. It does not always mean house.
 

sandstone

Banned
carris,

thanks for the link, but it doesn't include the data you left in a previous post which is what i have been addressing the past day or so... i can continue on with yet another conversation on quotes out of another book critical to the gauguelin material, but i opt to clear up the first before going on to the 2nd.. if you would like to provide a link for the quoted section below - great.. the data you quote in this post of yours is about helical rising, which is not to be confused with a planet on the eastern horizon.. the conclusions you make are not made any more clear with the latest post with link to a different conversation which requires a different response.. you are effectively mudding the waters and getting response to numerous comments and links you are leaving here while creating a good degree of confusion in the conversation as i see it.


Here are a few examples translated by Sachs:

If a child is born when the moon has come forth, (then his life will be) bright, excellent, regular and long.
If a child is born when Jupiter has come forth, (then his life will be) regular, well; he will become rich, he will grow old, (his) days will be long.
"If a child is born when Venus has come forth, (then his life will be) exceptionally calm; wherever he may go, it will be favorable; his days will be long.

In general, the rising (i.e. the 12th HOUSE!) of heavenly bodies was considered favorable because then the positive characteristics of the gods were at their peak. By contrast, the setting of the same bodies was held to be a bad omen.

/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Carris

Well-known member
carris,

thanks for the link, but it doesn't include the data you left in a previous post which is what i have been addressing the past day or so... i can continue on with yet another conversation on quotes out of another book critical to the gauguelin material, but i opt to clear up the first before going on to the 2nd.. if you would like to provide a link for the quoted section below - great.. the data you quote in this post of yours is about helical rising, which is not to be confused with a planet on the eastern horizon.. the conclusions you make are not made any more clear with the latest post with link to a different conversation which requires a different response.. you are effectively mudding the waters and getting response to numerous comments and links you are leaving here while creating a good degree of confusion in the conversation as i see it.


Here are a few examples translated by Sachs:

If a child is born when the moon has come forth, (then his life will be) bright, excellent, regular and long.
If a child is born when Jupiter has come forth, (then his life will be) regular, well; he will become rich, he will grow old, (his) days will be long.
"If a child is born when Venus has come forth, (then his life will be) exceptionally calm; wherever he may go, it will be favorable; his days will be long.

In general, the rising (i.e. the 12th HOUSE!) of heavenly bodies was considered favorable because then the positive characteristics of the gods were at their peak. By contrast, the setting of the same bodies was held to be a bad omen.

/QUOTE]
That quote is from "The cosmic clocks - M Gauquelin"
 

tsmall

Premium Member
In general, the rising (i.e. the 12th HOUSE!) of heavenly bodies was considered favorable because then the positive characteristics of the gods were at their peak. By contrast, the setting of the same bodies was held to be a bad omen.

Hmm, I see what might be going on. The parenthetical addition, presumably by Gauquelin and which likely was included in his writing to support his conclusions, is being confused with the idea that rising must equal 12th house. At the time the research was conducted, a lot of newly discovered information was not readily available in translated texts, and Placidus was the house system that ruled the day. But Carris, what you are quoting is Gauquelin's opinion on what the 12th house is. And his research was being presented to people who were only familiar with house systems that always began the 1st house at the ASC.

Further, the three planets you have quoted also happen to be the benefics. Are there other quotes in the book about the native when Saturn, Mars, and even Mercury are coming forth?

Lastly, maybe some of the confusion is being created because the two quotes here are only marginally connected by one word...rising. The first is quite clearly describing heliacal rising and culmination, while the second is supporting a theory that implicitly assumes a certain type of house system that places planets directly above the ASC in the 12th house, and this is not a system that the ancients were using.
 

Carris

Well-known member
Hmm, I see what might be going on. The parenthetical addition, presumably by Gauquelin and which likely was included in his writing to support his conclusions, is being confused with the idea that rising must equal 12th house. At the time the research was conducted, a lot of newly discovered information was not readily available in translated texts, and Placidus was the house system that ruled the day. But Carris, what you are quoting is Gauquelin's opinion on what the 12th house is. And his research was being presented to people who were only familiar with house systems that always began the 1st house at the ASC.

Further, the three planets you have quoted also happen to be the benefics. Are there other quotes in the book about the native when Saturn, Mars, and even Mercury are coming forth?

Lastly, maybe some of the confusion is being created because the two quotes here are only marginally connected by one word...rising. The first is quite clearly describing heliacal rising and culmination, while the second is supporting a theory that implicitly assumes a certain type of house system that places planets directly above the ASC in the 12th house, and this is not a system that the ancients were using.
No there are no quotes about saturn, mercury or mars. I don't see how you can assume that it is about helical rising. The two quotes from different sources talk about the same thing and quote books and translations done by many different authors. So all of them were wrong? And sandstone is right? Why? What is the logic or reasoning behind that? If you two want to stubbornly, blindly, close-mindedly believe that the 12th is negative (for what reason I don't know), I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

Gauquelin has not added the words in the brackets - it is the original translation by Sachs:

"Around the fifth century B.C. there appeared for the first time maxims that related a man's birthdate to his possible destiny. At first these predictions were obviously made only for the kings. The forecasts were based on the motion of the planets. Here are a few examples translated by Sachs: "If a child is born when the moon has come forth, (then his life will be) bright, excellent, regular and long."

"The Chaldeans' astronomical discoveries and their astrological transcriptions were a fundamental breakthrough. Thanksto the imaginative and patient work of many Orientalists, in particular A. Sachs and B. Van der Waerden, the clay tablets have revealed their secrets, enabling us to sketch in the development of Chaldean astrology."

What is so difficult and unbelievable about this? Why does coming forth mean heliacal rising? How? And even if Gauquelin had added the parenthesis how do the words in the brackets support his conclusion? Is there any reasoning at all?
 
Last edited:

MaeMae

Banned
See my mystery is this. Why is the 12th House more debilitated than the 6th House in Traditional Astrology? I understand why the 8th, 6th and 12th are debilitated in a sense, but can anyone help me with the above question?

I've been thinking about this in a logical manner and I came too the conclusion that I am stuck in a conundrum! Trad. Astrology indicates that since the 6th House is Injunct the AC (despite being under-the-earth) and the 12th House is in a Semi-Sextile (therefore Combust) from the AC (despite being over-the-earth), the 12th House is more debilitated than the 6th. Seems a good reason sure, but then I look at the 8th House and the 2nd House and see the opposite happening, yet the 2nd is stronger than the 8th (too most Trad Astrologers).

Yet the 8th is NOT Semi-Sextile the AC (therefore not combust) and over-the-earth. The 2nd House (succeedent like the 8th) is under-the-earth and combust the AC. In the logic from the first paragraph, shouldn't the 2nd be more debilitated than the 8th?

Many can argue that under-the-earth houses aren't as badly affected by the sun therefore resulting in the 2nd and 6th being less debilitated than the over-the-earth houses i.e. 8th and 12th. In that logic as well, then assuming the 5th and 11th houses, shouldn't the 5th be stronger than the 11th house (assuming we are using the above logic...so don't get hyper and try to justify the otherwise, I know already).

Of course this is all theory and irrelevant to current astrology. It's just my way of trying to make sense of things (not trying to start an astrological revolution or anything)! If anyone could help me with this puzzle, I would greatly appreciated!

because the sun has gone down ~ at it's weakest
 
Top