Progression question

1
first I'd like to know what books, links, or articles anyone might know of on the subject,(and recommend) BUT secondly I have a question about progressed charts,

do you always read them against the natal or do you also look at them as a stand alone? if someone looks at them as a stand alone I'd also like to know why. I have this tendency to think of them as similar to Solar Return charts for some reason...

I've only read a little bit about progression and I"d like to understand it a bit better. it seems like everytime I try to sit down with the subject I get side tracked.

Granny

Re: Progression question

2
granny_skot wrote:first I'd like to know what books, links, or articles anyone might know of on the subject,(and recommend) BUT secondly I have a question about progressed charts,

do you always read them against the natal or do you also look at them as a stand alone? if someone looks at them as a stand alone I'd also like to know why. I have this tendency to think of them as similar to Solar Return charts for some reason...

I've only read a little bit about progression and I"d like to understand it a bit better. it seems like everytime I try to sit down with the subject I get side tracked.

Granny

Two books come to mind which had a major influence on how I use and work with progressions:

"Secondary Progressions - Time to Remember" by Nancy Hastings, Samuel Wiser Publisher

and Sophia Mason's "Delineation of Progressions", AFA publisher


james

3
The two that James recommended are the two that I use. Both are good for different things.

Sophia Mason's book is insightful, but the layout of the material leaves out a lot of progressions. For instance, she does a description for Progressed Venus aspecting Mars, but nothing for Progressed Mars aspecting Venus. Because Venus comes "before" Mars, only the Venus progression is included.

Nancy Hasting's book has a lot of material on progressions by signs, which Mason's book doesn't cover. She also has good material on progressions to the Ascendent/Descendent, MidHeaven/IC, of which Mason's book has a little.

Take a look also at Rushman's Predictive Astrology for Moon progressions - it was published more recently than the other two.
All I know is that if my birth chart was a horary, the answer would be "No".

My Blog: http://slushpileastrology.blogspot.com/

4
I'd like to recommend a great book on the subject by Bernadette Brady called "the Eagle and the Lark" A textbook of predictive Astrology One of my favorite books easy to read and understand and great techniques and example charts etc I look at transits to the progressed chart and this usually yields interesting info. I use the moon phases in the progressed chart and in relationship to any natal planets. The Progressed Moon is fascinating to observe. There are a few pod casts available on progressions too you might enjoy listening to them - I did!!

5
I have a copy of The Eagle and the Lark and I hadn't looked at it in long time, at least until Sunny's suggestion and I'm glad I did. For those interested in progressions Brady makes two points, one tacit and one direct, that put the use of progressions in perspective. Tacitly, she demonstrates that progressions are used the way primary directions are used, the slow movement of the planets unfold over time. There is no "progressed chart" in the sense that there is a solar return chart (well there is, sort of; see below). We cast the solar return for a particular place and time and use the chart. We watch progressions for an "incident" say the point where progressed Mars perfects a square with natal Jupiter. We might wish to cast a chart for that moment, but we don't cast a progressed chart for each year and use it that way. We watch the ascendant "move" through the natal sign and at one point change signs. The same is true for the planets. When these changes occur, things tend to happen in the life.

One might also watch progressed planets and angles as they move through the terms or bounds as Dr. H does with directed planets. The same techniques could be used with solar arc directions for those interested in that technique.

Brady does specifically point out that secondary progressions are more personal than other methods such as transits. Currently there is a Saturn Uranus opposition in place, but that is the same for the whole world. If that opposition hits, say natal Jupiter, it hits natal Jupiter for millions perhaps tens of millions of people depending on the orb allowed. But the progressed planets and aspects when they perfect are unique to the individual (Outer planets, which would be more generally viewed in most charts, move so slowly by progression that they are rarely used other than when they hit angles or perhaps when they perfect an already close aspect). If the native has Mars at 10 Gemini, he may well share that will millions, but those others all won't have his chart, and far fewer will have it to the minute. That minute is important when perfecting a progressed aspect. Since the rest of his chart is most likely unique, when progressed Mars perfects an aspect or even changes bounds, it is more likely to be unique to the native than a transit.

Brady goes into a lot of psychological stuff that doesn't interest me, and probably will interest others, but her over all explanation of the use of progressions makes for good reading.

Tom

6
You could also look for Alan Leo's 'Progressed Horoscope' which just like Brady's book is on Google books (not in theri entirety but enough to get a taste of it). Although Leo is 'modern' in a traditional sense, he is still rather concrete compared to post WWII post Rudhyar/Jungian astrology.

Usually the natal chart is used as basis. Not progressed planet to progressed planet.

Placidus made use of the progressions.

Personally I look mostly at the Sun's progressions, and with some reluctance to those of the Moon and even more reluctant to the planets. I too use the natal chart as basis.

I'd be careful with 'cookbook' interpretation of progressions. Much depends on the natal positions. An afflicted natal Mars receiving a trine from progressed Sun still won't give a wonderful time.

7
Eddy wrote: Placidus made use of the progressions.
True :)

If someone wants to give a look in my blog here

http://heavenastrolabe.net/library/

an year ago I translated from Placido, "the revolt of Masaniello" where in the last part he examines progressions and lunar return in Masaniello chart.

It's a very interesting text, and in fact it was included in the collection of astrological texts published by Bezza, and now out of catalogue.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

8
One other book I would recommend you checking out is by the modern author Robert Blaschke. Its titled: Astrology: A Language of Life; Volume I - Progressions.

What is genuinely different about this book is that Blaschke examines all three systems of progressions: secondary, tertiary and minor.

Secondary progressions are based on the 1 solar day = 1 solar year principle. However, for Tertiary progressions 1 solar day = 1 lunar month. Minor progressions involve 1 lunar month =1 solar year. All three systems involve the notion that a cycle or arc of a luminary can symbolise a year in a persons life.

Both tertiary and minor have the progressed planets moving much faster. Thus unlike secondary progressions the superior planets can be useful too. Blaschke's book is strong on things like the planets phase cycle in progressed charts. Checking out for when planets change station in a progressed chart is very important.

For both tertiary or minor progressions there are variations in both systems. In particular they can be calculated based on the zodiacal or synodic lunar month.

Personally I have found what are called 'minor progressions' very interesting. I think its a shame they have attracted this title in modern astrology as it seems to imply they are more peripheral or less useful.

Actually Placidus de Titus invented both secondary progressions and minor progressions. He just didn't call the latter system that. Placido's type of progression based on lunar month =solar year was based on the timing of the synodic lunar month rather than the time the Moon takes to return to its zodiacal position at birth.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

10
MarkC wrote: Actually Placidus de Titus invented both secondary progressions and minor progressions. He just didn't call the latter system that. Placido's type of progression based on lunar month =solar year was based on the timing of the synodic lunar month rather than the time the Moon takes to return to its zodiacal position at birth.

Mark
In a book I have - De Luce's Complete Method of Predition I found an example of calculation, even if approximated.
I don't know if Solar Fire calculated it and where.


De Luce - he should be some adept of Placido, says the first lunation which takes 29 1/2 days rules the first year of life, the second year of life is ruled by the second 29 and 1/2 days and so on. In a year there are 12 lunations and 11 days.


I take the example from my translation of Placido "The revolt of Masaniello".

Masaniello born in Naples on the 19th June 1620
Revolt: 7th July 1647

1647-1620=27 lunations

27:12= 2 years less 11*2= 22 days

(the remainder of lunations is 3 because 12*2=24)

Masaniello was born the 19th of June 1620

+ 2 years= 19th June 1622

less 22 days = 28th May 1622

Now let's add the remainder 3 lunations= 28th August 1622

Placido says 27th August 1622, so not so from our result.

margherita
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com

11
Placido's type of progression based on lunar month =solar year was based on the timing of the synodic lunar month rather than the time the Moon takes to return to its zodiacal position at birth.
This timing is measured as the repeat of the same aspect that the Moon to the Sun had at birth. This repeat is then a year. This repeating aspect is measured along the ecliptic. However the Moon has her own orbit, the lunar orbit which is tilted 5? towards the ecliptic.

When the secondary progressions are used, this is done with the distance of the Sun to the meridian as basis. Now the 'orbit' of the meridian is the equator and this instead of the ecliptic is used. So there's a difference.

This is a slight difference and unless high precision is required in either one of these progressions it simply can be ignored. The difference will be at most several days.

However from a theoretical point of view this is an issue that has been baffling me for some months. Moreover, not only in theory this can be a problem but in primary directions this can create big differences up to several direction 'years'. An example of a hypothetical person will illustrate this. For the calculations I made use of www.ephemeris.com and www.astro.com .

Birthplace Greenwich UK,
Date Friday 7 August 2009*,
Time 17h46m01s UT
Sidereal Time 14h51m32s,
Sun 15?20'57" Leo
(Asc 9?39'04" Capricornus)**
MC 15?21'03" Scorpius
Distance MC-Sun 90?00'06"
Right Ascension Sun 9h11m15s
(Declination +16?14'01")**
Distance Meridian (i.e. same as the Sidereal Time) Sun =
5h4017m is 85?04'15" Equatorial degrees.

If the secondary progression is defined as 1 true solar day = 1 tropical year then for exactly 92 days/years later the data are:
Date 7 November 2009*
17h43m43s UT
Sidereal Time 20h51m57s
Sun 15?27'04" Scorpius
(Ascendant 15?53'32" Gemini)**
MC 10?32'14" Aquarius
Distance MC-Sun 85?05'10"
Right Ascension Sun 14h51m57s
(Declination -16?28'03")**
Distance Meridian-Sun
6h = 90? Equatorial

If the secondary progression is defined as the repeat of the same ecliptic distance of MC-Sun (for the 92nd time) then the data are:
Date 7 November 2009*
Time 18h03m25s UT
Sidereal Time 21h11m42s
Sun 15?27'54" Scorpius
(Ascendant 21?11'30" Gemini)
MC 15?27'51" Aquarius
Distance MC-Sun 90?
Right Ascension Sun 14h51m57s
(Declination -16?28'03")
Distance Meridian-Sun
6h19m42s = 94?55'30" Equatorial

* - I chose these dates and the distance of MC-Sun as 90? and the life span to get the most extreme example, the variations will differ from 0?-5?
** For the sake of completeness I mentioned the position of the Ascendant and the declination of the Sun but these play no key role in the calculations, however the differences of the Ascendants are illustrative too)

This shows that there is a difference whether the equator or the ecliptic is used. In progressions the maximum difference is just 5 days. However if the same is applied to primary directions then the difference will go up to 5 years!

If the chart is directed turning 92? along the equator (i.e. 92 years for the key of Ptolemy), which is equal to 6h8m Sidereal Time which is added to the Sidereal Time at birth then:
Sidereal Time 23h59m32s
(Clock) Time 11h53m00s
MC 12?25'07" Aquarius
Ascendant 17?58'31" Gemini

If the chart is directed 92? along the ecliptic (and still using the key 1?=1 year) then
Time 0h16m32s (the next day 8 November 2009)
Sidereal Time 21h19m11s
MC 17?20?56' (which is simply almost exactly 92? further along the ecliptic)
Ascendant 23?05'49" Gemini

This shows that the second primary direction would have occured 5 years earlier than the first one.

Back to the problem at the basis of this all. Which one should be chosen?

On the one side one can argue that in astrology the reference frame that is mainly used is the ecliptic. I don't dispute the value of other reference frames but since the ecliptic is used by allmost all astrologers then this would speak for the use of lunar progressions measured the repeat of the same ecliptic distance of Sun and Moon. After all the astrological aspects used are measured likewise.

On the other side however one can argue that in secondary progressions the measure of the true solar day is the one which is closest related to nature. Even the return of the Moon to its relative position towards the Sun measured along the lunar orbit can be seen as natural. this because in eclipses the maximum of the eclipse is the shortest distance between the centers of Sun and Moon. The difference between this and ecliptical conjunction is usually just a few minutes yet can make a difference of total eclipse and 99% eclipse. (Most delineation of eclipses is done with ecliptical conjunction.) By the way I actually consider the different reference frames all as 'natural' but the ecliptical frame is of a different nature than the others and I believe of particular interest to astrology

I consider this quite a problem. I don't know which one to choose. For secondary and tertiary progressions I can ignore this but I don't know how to deal with it in primary directions even though traditionally the equator is the base for the directing with the results measured along the ecliptic.

12
Hi Granny,
do you always read them (progressed charts) against the natal or do you also look at them as a stand alone? if someone looks at them as a stand alone I'd also like to know why.
You can certainly read a progressed chart as a stand alone chart. The progressed moon phase is hugely important for instance, and you would always make note of a progressed planet or angle changing signs or perfecting an aspect with another progressed planet. In a consultation, I do both, look at the progressed chart on its own and how it connects to the natal chart.

Tara