Traditional Astrology Thread

Perhaps you don't see the constant baiting on your part.

That's exactly what the issue is. It's very simple really.

The need to analyze the why of it is a good way to avoid, deny, and deflect.

Yes that's exactly right... more psychobabble bullshit.

I called you on your bullshit. You don't wish to look at it and instead want to turn the focus around on "me". Well, that's the choice you've made. Carry on & keep spewing. I've said what I felt called to say and I'm done. Have at it.

Yeah right.

 

I hereby solemnly swear that there was never any premeditated baiting on my part. Do I sometimes have a provocative effect on people? Yes. Is that provocation intentional? Rarely, and definitely not during the instance that you're referencing.

And that's your misperception -- equally if not more simple.

And the choice to act out of ignorance is an even better way.

I'm glad you have a sense of closure about the whole thing.

No thanks.

Your sarcasm only serves to reveal the discontent and embitterment that has been the underlying driving force behind your responses to my posts from the beginning.

Travis

 

LOL! In this case my sarcasm is another way of saying "bullshit".

 

Yes, and where does our impulse to see "bullshit" come from? Discontent and embitterment.

Travis

 

That's a possibility of course, but to assume that this is always the case is narrow minded or ignorant.

The impulse to see bullshit could very well occur when there's simply the openness to see WHAT IS. And then if bullshit is WHAT IS then THAT is what is seen. And then it may be that there's a prompt to come out and say so.

Basically we act on one of two promptings: ego or clarity (substitute whatever word for clarity you wish). You think that I acted from some sort of ego prompting, based on my own delusion, projecting my own crap onto you. Ok, that's the way you see it. Is it true? Could there be another cause?

Let's leave it at that. No use :beatdeadhorse5:

 

Not if the statement is understood correctly. "Bullshit", in the context that you've used it, is simply a form of judgement. Judgement is an egoic defense mechanism intended to produce a sense of separation between an aspect of one's being that's considered undesirable and the same behavioral or personality trait as exhibited or perceived in another.

Absolutely. However, there are degrees of openness to what is. To vastly oversimplify the phenomenon for the sake of the point, if someone is subconsciously clinging to latent forms of grief, but on the level of their conscious mind they are open to what is in that moment, then they may have an impulse to express or experience that grief in a more visceral way. And when one's conscious awareness is applied to that grief, it is able to dissipate. The same phenomenon is applicable to "bullshit". When you apply the entirety of your consciousness to the experience of what is, you discover that "bullshit" is an illusion of the separative identity (ego).

It's not that black and white. Ego and clarity can coexist quite effectively.

How about you drop all of this pretense and just be honest?

I initially found it strange that you equated some aspect of our dynamic at this juncture in our conversation with "beating a dead horse". Following my response, however, it occurred to me this might be your way of expressing a sense of discomfort with the direction of the conversation. If that is in fact the case, I apologize for pursuing the subject matter. I realize this will probably mean very little to you given your apparent perceptions of me, but I always appreciated your contributions to the Philosophy and Religions forum. I think you have a great deal of spiritual insight, and that is an opinion that hasn't been altered as a result of any ego distortions that this conversation may have exposed in you.

Travis

 

Look dude, I'm not interested in embarking on a philosophical exercise with you to expound on the esoteric meaning of "bullshit". LOL! You can explain it away all you want, cover it over with fancy psychospiritual bubble talk, point the finger at me all you want. The bottom line is this. Look within and SEE whatever you want to see. I'll do the same.

Ciao

 

Ah yes, the "esoteric meaning of bullshit" is just hilarious isn't it? Or maybe you're just evading the issue at hand with a condescending and mocking tone, which apparently is just business as usual for you.

Explain what away? I was attempting to tactfully expose the insane degree of hypocrisy exhibited in your posts. You accuse me of being full of shit and glossing over my "issues" with psychospiritual bubble talk while simultaneously evading an admission of your ego-based motivations for engaging in a dialogue with me by saying things like:

Pseudo-spiritual rationalizations for ego-based behavior epitomized.

When I look within, I never see what I want to see. I see what is.

I have little doubt that you will see whatever you want to see. And you'll remain shackled by your ego for as long as you continue to do so.

Arrivederci
(Hey look, I can use pretentious foreign terms of parting intended to be dismissive as well).

Travis

 

I disagree with your perception in its entirety. Goodbye.

 

That does not bode well for you. Goodbye.

Travis

 

you can lead a horse to water....


hehehe

 

I mentioned earlier that I was going to talk about the Hyleg.

Hyleg is a Latinized Arabic word (originally hilaj) meaning "giver of life". It's actually a Hellenistic technique talked about in several texts, most notably Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos.

This was one of the first techniques practiced on a chart, quite simply because if the chart doesn't have a hyleg, the person likely won't live to adulthood, and most likely even to childhood.

This fits in with a Hellenistic concept called "natal differentiae", which are four categories that were systematically used to delineate all new births that an astrologer read for. All adults are considered the fourth differentia, and thus should have a hyleg.

The idea of the four differentia are actually one concept that has changed over time since we have less infant death now, and frankly it's one area few new parents will want to know about. I confess this this one area I stay away from.

The hyleg is the significator of a person's life. It is used as a basis for several other calculations. According to traditional techniques, if someone is an adult, they have to have a hyleg. Indeed it is very rare to not find one. I personally haven't seen one.

By itself, it won't necessarily tell you much about a person, but used in conjunction with other techniques is quite important.

Usually the hyleg is either the Sun or Moon. The first thing you look at is if the Sun or Moon are angular - i.e. in the 1st, 4th, 7th, or 10th. If both are angular, then you take the one that is strongest according to essential dignities. In a perfect world, you want the Sun above the horizon in a day chart in a masculine sign, and/or the Moon below the horizon in a female sign. In a night chart, the Moon would be above the horizon and the Sun below. However, what you are looking for is at least one of them angular and dignified by either sign, exaltation, triplicity, term, or decan, or a combination of these.

If one or both are angular but not dignified, but they aspect one of the rulers of the degree they are in, then that is still fine. For example, let's say the Sun is at 13 degrees Taurus. In that degree the Sun is weak. But, if it aspects Taurus' ruler Venus, or Taurus' exaltation ruler the Moon, or any of Taurus' triplicity rulers Venus, Moon, or Mars (yes I know I already mentioned Venus and the Moon), or that degree's term ruler Mercury, or the decan ruler the Moon, and that planet is strong, then the Sun can be the hyleg. So for 13 degrees Taurus, the Sun would have to aspect the Moon, Venus, Mars, or Mercury. By aspect I mean only the traditional aspects - sextile, conjunction, square, oppositon, or trine.

If the Sun or Moon have one or all of the requirements above - strong or aspecting a dignified ruler of its degree, but isn't angular, it's still acceptable for it to be succeedent, i.e. 2nd, 5th, 8th, or 11th.

So as you can see, you have a lot of chances to make things work here. This is why most people have either the Sun or Moon as hyleg.

If you still can't use the Sun or Moon, then there is a long list of things to look at, which may make this post too long. So far I've only run into 1 chart where I had to use something other than the Sun or Moon.

 

Enlil, I was curious if in your Traditional Astrology studies you've ever come across any information about Ophiuchus. It's supposedly the hidden 13th sign, located between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Here's the link in case you're interested: Ophiuchus .

I just learned about it recently and apparently the knowledge of it has been around a long time.

 

It's mentioned, but it's not hidden nor is it a sign. It's a constellation. The signs are not the same as the constellations, but they ARE based on constellations placed on the ecliptic. However each of the signs are actually idealized, in that they are each 30 degrees. The actual constellations vary greatly in size. The Sun is only in Scorpio for about a week for instance.

Hellenistic astrologers talked about Ophiucus, and also talked about how the signs aren't the same as constellations. They are sort of like spiritual equivalents of the constellations, so Ophiucus really doesn't even fit in the scheme of things very well. Part of that scheme is mathematic - 360 degrees divided by 12 gives you 12 equal 30 degree signs, 6 above the horizon and 6 below. If you make that 13, it greatly changes pretty much everyting else in how astrology is set up.

 

Yes, I understand that constellations are the physical manifestations while signs are their symbolic representatives. I didn't mean to indicate that it was one or the other. And yes, this being the 13th constellation/sign, if included, would change the whole nature of Astrology as we know it, and would render the system based on 12 to be in error. That's what I'm curious about. Was Astrology always based on 12 signs? Or could it have been interpreted differently with the inclusion of Ophiucus? It seems relevant to me somehow.

 

Just so you know, I figured you knew that basic info, but some others may not. I'm also writing for people who are inexperienced.

Astrology has always been 12 signs at least as long as there are surviving written records. Even in surviving Mesopotamian records, it's 12 signs.

 

I totally undertand that. I do that too sometimes.

Ok, thanks. I was curious if there had been any record of this sign being used. I like to go outside the consensus view alot, and explore other possibilities. It seems to me that if there's awareness of this constellation then there should be some kind of representation in Astrological terms, to accurately capture the mirror effect of the physical world. Same with the possibility of Planet X, which I've been finding out about recently as well. I believe there's knowledge of that one by the Mayans and other ancient cultures.

 

Well traditional astrology uses fixed stars a lot. I don't remember off the top of my head which ones are in Ophiucus, but if the stars are bright enough, chances are they were used in some fashion. Just because a constellation isn't a sign doesn't mean they weren't used.

However, if the constellations are far enough away from the ecliptic, it's difficult to reach an aspect to the planets, conjunctions being the most used.

Traditional astrology ha a sub-set for magical use. The fixed stars are very popular for various rituals, so even if a natal chart doesn't get a lot of fixed star attention, you can use them for magic.

 

that makes sense.

Might look into that, thanks.

 

I thought I would talk about chart rulers.

This is a question asked often. The idea here is that the chart ruler exerts a sort of primal influence on the native, and colors many aspects of their life.

There are three major schools of thought on finding the chart ruler.

For this I'll use Bob Dylan's chart (for the record, I don't know if this chart is 100% correct):



System 1

The simplest, and one that is most popular in modern astrology (though this is a relatively old idea), is that the chart ruler is the planet that rules the sign on the ascendant or first house cusp. For instance, in Bob Dylan's case, his ascendant is Sagittarius, so according to this system, his chart ruler is Jupiter.

System 2

The second idea, which was more popular in the 16th and 17th centuries, is finding the most powerful planet on the chart. This is accomplished by looking at all of the planets on the chart and by using an essential dignities table, see which ones are in their own sign, exaltation, term, triplicity, and decan. The essential dignities have a point system:

Sign rulership - 5
Exaltation - 4
Triplicity - 3
Term - 2
Decan - 1

The planet with the most points is Mercury with 8 points. It's in one of its signs, and is in triplicity. Plus, since it's in the 7th house, it's angular which gives it even more weight. In some texts, you would also consider the house placement since some houses are more powerful than others. The 7th is one of the stronger houses. Also in some texts you would consider any afflictions such as oppositions or square aspects with Saturn or Mars. In any case, Mercury isn't afflicted. In this system Mercury is the chart ruler.

System 3

This is my favorite, and was popular in Medieval Arabic and European astrology. I believe this is actually older since it is alluded to in earlier texts, but not detailed. In fact it is mentioned by several Neoplatonist philosophers such as Plotinus and Iamblichus.

I mentioned the essential dignity point system above. This is used, but instead of looking at all the planets in the chart, you are finding the most powerful planet amongst several degrees in the chart.

I'll explain.

Each degree in the zodiac has a ruling planet. In practice a planet actually rules a group of degrees, but they aren't even divisions. So, Jupiter may rule the first 5 degrees, Venus the next 3, and Mars the next 6. So in every chart, the first degree of Aries for instance, the ruler is the Sun, since in that degree, the Sun is exalted ruler and triplicity ruler.

Here are the degrees to look for:

The ascendant
The Sun
The Moon
The Part of Fortune
The degree of the new or full Moon prior to birth

For each of these degrees, you give:

5 points to the planet ruling that sign
4 points to the planet who is the exalted ruler
3 points to all three triplicity rulers
2 points to the term ruler
1 point to the decan ruler

I'll do the ascendant for illustration:

Ascendant is at 20 deg. Sag

Ruler = Jupiter 5 points
Exalted planet = none
Triplicity rulers = Sun, Jupiter, Saturn - 3 points each
decan ruler = Moon 1 point

I repeat this for the degrees of the Sun, Moon, and so on as mentioned above.

After this, I add a certain number of points according to the houses all the planets are in. This is because as I mentioned, some houses are stronger than others.

To simplify this here, the most powerful house is the 1st, and gets 12 points. If a planet were in the 1st house, it would get 12 points. Here is the list of houses from the most powerful to the least:

1, 10, 7, 4, 11, 5, 2, 9, 8, 3, 12, 6

So the 1st house is the strongest with 12 points, and the 6th is the weakest is the 6th with only 1 point.

Bob Dylan's chart works out this way:

Saturn - 5th house - 7 points
Jupiter - 5th house - 7 points
Mars - 3rd house - 3 points
Sun - 6th house - 1 point
Venus - 6th house - 1 point
Mercury - 7th house - 10 points
Moon - 5th house - 7 points

Next we give the planet who rules the day 7 points. Dylan was born on a Saturday, so Saturn is the ruler.

Next we give 6 points to the planet ruling the hour. This is a bit difficult to figure out by hand, and I could explain this elsewhere. For now, I'll just say it's the Moon for Dylan.

Now we add all of this up, giving totals to each of the planets. I make a table to make this easier:



The chart ruler according to this system is Jupiter.

Now one of the purposes of a chart ruler is to determine the person's primary motivation.

So far we have:

System 1 - Jupiter
System 2 - Mercury
System 3 - Jupiter

In this case, the ascendant ruler and the 3rd system match.

The conclusion:

Jupiter is in the 5th house (entertainment and children) in Venus' sign. Mercury is in the 7th (partnerships and open enemies) in his own sign. Both are obviously important, but if we are talking about something to represent Bob Dylan, I'd lean towards Jupiter, since the 5th is entertainment, and Jupiter is in Venus' sign. Venus rules music.

Some charts will have three different chart rulers for each technique. In fact I see the ascendant ruler being totally different that the 3rd method in several charts.