In your actual practice of astrological delineation, how important are the stars?

I considers stars a major (primary) element in chart delineation..
Total votes: 6 (38%)
I consider stars a minor (secondary) element in chart delineation.
Total votes: 4 (25%)
I rarely (or never) consider stars in chart delineation.
Total votes: 6 (38%)
Total votes: 16

2
Are stars major, minor or rare/null considerations in your practical astrological work?
Hello Dr farr,

As far as I am concerned fixed stars are a primary consideration in any astrological judgement. They are the part of the core of how I assess a chart following the initial issues such as planets, signs, houses, aspects and dignities/reception.

I dont agree with the teachings of some traditional teachers such as Olivia Barclay that fixed stars are not relevant to issues such as horary or even natal delineation. The idea being that they only have significance for mundane affairs. This view doesn't match my experience at all. I find fixed stars useful for any kind of chart. A friend of mine learned horary with John Frawley and she was taught fixed stars are simply 'the salt and pepper' or inessential condiments of chart delineation. I dont share that perspective myself. That being said I wouldn't interpret a chart on just fixed stars alone anymore than I would assess it all on just aspects, houses or dignities. However, fixed stars frequently provide crucial support to other indicators in a chart.

The traditional astrologer has numerous other delineation tools available such as sect, antiscia, parts/lots, synodic cycle , planetary speed etc. However, If I am honest I would probably put fixed stars before all these. The only additional technique I might put beside fixed stars is synodic cycle as this is an area I find increasingly attractive.

I think a large part of the appeal of fixed stars is their natural quality. Quite simply look at the real sky! What do you see? If for some reason our entire culture was wiped out any future astrology would be hard to contemplate without incorporating the basics of planets and stars at its core. Could one really say the same of symbolic techniques such as sect, antiscia, lots etc? I concede all astrology works on symbolic principles. However, the fact fixed stars are a part of our physical universe gives them more importance in my understanding of astrological symbolism.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

4
Mark, do you apply ecliptical longitude or paranatellonta as to fixed stars?
Both. I especially like paranatellonta with stars co-arising with the horizon/culminating etc or a planet. However, I am a lot less impressed by Brady's idea of using any paran line up within a day of birth. Of course she can find charts to fit this. However, the technique is so generalised that is not very difficult. The cynic in me thinks she leads with this approach because it gives everyone meaningful parans to delineate. I think stars exactly co-arising with an angle or planet in a natal, electional or mundane chart etc are much more astrologically powerful.

I went through a phase when I completely rejected ecliptical projection for stars well outside the ecliptic. Quite a few astrologers recommend this. Brady dismisses all zodiacal projection. In his preface to the Project Hindsight translation of Anonymous of 379 Robert Hand recommends only working with stars close to the ecliptic in this way. The band used could be the orbit of the traditional planets or out as far as Pluto if you use it. The logic being that we already project planets position on to the ecliptic. Similarly, in his book The Hellenistic Legacy Joseph Crane follows this recommendation too. Its a position I do respect but I confess I have had a few charts where stars well outside the ecliptic do seem very revealing using ecliptical projection. Whether this was random luck or a 'meaningfiul coincidence' I have yet to reach a definitive conclusion on. Brady's view is that stars should not be treated like planets. She argues planets are the natural attendants of the Sun along the ecliptic while stars are not part of this astronomical framework.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that ecliptical projection seems to be suggested for stars well outside the ecliptic from the earliest texts. Brady suggests this is due to Ptolemy. However, the method almost certainly preceded him. Even Anonymous of 379, whom Brady uses as her template text for her paran method, discusses ecliptical projection for stars well outside the ecliptic.

Still , one does need to exercise caution with stars at the ascendant using zodiacal projection as this will be vastly different for the in mundo position of star if it is well outside the ecliptic. There are also issues about whether circumpolar stars or stars that never appear in a particular latitude should be used at all? Another delineation issue is that projection on to the zodiac can result in more than one star very close to each other in zodiacal degree. This can occur even though the individual stars are vastly apart in declination and latitude. For example Spica and Arcturus, Betelgeuse and Polaris or Sirius and Canopus. In recognition of such potential problems lots of traditional sources emphasize that a star is more powerful closer to the ecliptic (ie close in longitude and latitude) to a planet or zodiacal angle.

Joseph Crane suggests a third method involving fixed stars is to look at stars on the same declination as a zodiacal degree as an angle or planet. This allows a wider band of stars to be included (such as the star Sirius) which are well outside the band of the ecliptic considered by Crane for zodiacal projection. He attributes this method to Hephaistio of Thebes.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

5
MarkC's outlook regarding the stars is very similar to my own.

I have never used parans myself, primarily because the results I have obtained with longitude and parallel/contra-parallel of (ecliptic) declination, have been completely satisfactory (for me) In my analysis of star influences, I only consider conjunction or parallel (very rarely, contra-parallel) I have not personally seen (what I would consider) substantial evidence of stellar operation via the hermetic aspects (with some qualifying of this statement in respect to longitudinal opposition) I do consider star "conjunctions" and parallels with "points of meaningful space", that is, spatial points coincident with the various Lots, sensitive degrees ("cusps"), the pivots (especially asc and mc), also antiscia and Pauline dodekatemorion points.

Regarding stars projected upon the ecliptic, though far distant from it, this reminds me of the system of meridians used in Oriental (and also Ayurvedic) therapeutics: for example, points ("accupoints", "marma points") found say upon the lower leg, are nonetheless part of the "heart meridian", although in fact there are virtually no apparent (physiological) connections between that point and the heart (no nerve connections, blood vessel connections, etc) The connection is via a completely subtle-energy field meridian. I conceptualize a similar "meridian like" subtle connection existing between the actual spatial position of a star, and a point on the ecliptic. I do not claim that this is in fact the reality of the situation, only that this concept satisfies me (so far, at least) regarding this question.

6
Hello MarkC and dr.farr,

Do you mind if I epxress my opinion over this?
No? No objection. OK here goes!

Fixed stars: Primary, Secondary or none at all?
Primary if configured with the natal planets, secondary if not.

Application: Event, Electional, Horary, Natal, Mundane?
All of them! Having said this, I find that the same fixed star could give very different meanings in different charts.

Methodology:
I am still not comfortable using projection to the ecliptic conjunctional for stars outside the band of the ecliptic. I use the conjunction of fixed stars to the planets for stars that are within the band of the ecliptic. I do not use any other aspect for the fixed stars (conjunction is the only aspect I look into for stars within the band of the ecliptic).

I also use the parallel aspects of stars to planets. I do not use contra-parallel aspects (as I don't think they mean the opposite of parallel aspects just as I don't think that the meaning of contra-antiscion or contrascion is simply the opposite of antiscion).
Parallel by declination or ecliptic latitude?
At the moment I have not decided but I am more inclined towards parallel by declination. Reason? Because many people said so (not a very good reason! ? that is why I?ve not decided).

I do use the paran configuration that planets (including the four angles) make to stars. If they are exact (e.g. Moon was exactly on ASC/MC/IC/DSC) when another star was exactly on ASC/MC/IC/DSC) i.e. they happen within 4 minutes of birth - then it's really important!. For this case, I use all the planets (even up to Pluto).

If it only happens during the day you were born (Brady's type of paran method), then both the planet and the star involved must be conspicuous enough for them to have observable effects (i.e. the star must be visible during the night in question and the planet should be located in the powerful houses e.g. angular houses). If the star is in its invisible phase and/or the planet tucked away in some cadent houses - then forget it. By the way, I only use the personal planets for this method (Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury and sometimes Mars - haven't decided on Mars). I definitely skip Jupiter onwards for this method.

If the star is the heliacal rising star during the day that you were born (the first day that the star appears in the morning sky after a period of invisibility), that star gets a special looking. Anybody born on the same day would also have the same "ruling star" but the effects will be more conspicuous if the star is configured in some other way stated above.

Although Brady's mundane paran stars configuration (planets making paran relationship to star during the day you were born rather than exact) is not appealing to some astrologers, I believe that it still has merit if the star is visible (during the night) and the planet is powerful (e.g. angular) in a natal chart.

For mundane astrology, the star should still be visible (in the night sky in the location of interest) but no conditions are attached to the planets. Brady's configuration is interesting because it differentiates the effects of the stars at different location (i.e. geographical latitude). This is because the ecliptic degree that rises with the star is different for different geographical latitude of place for stars that lie outside the ecliptic band. The further the star is from the ecliptic band, the more different the eclitic degree that rises with the star would be for different geographical latitude.

Example: Regulus lies almost on the ecliptic itself,
Celestial latitude: 0deg 28min (currently).
It rises approximately with ecliptic degree of 0 Virgo at my place (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Lat 03N), Washington and London.

Another example: Algol lies quite far from the ecliptic.
Celestial latitude: 22deg 26 min (currently).
It rises approximately with ecliptic degree of 18 Taurus at my place (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Lat 03N), 4 Aries in Washington and does not rise in London (it has a permanent curtailed passage).

The rising is important to localize the effects of transiting aspects in mundane astrology. For example, you might have a transiting T-square of difficult planets occurring. If you wish to know whether the difficult aspect/configuration has any great impact on the country you could do one of two things:

1. Check whether the ecliptic degree of one of the planets involved in the difficult aspect/configuration is the same as the ecliptic rising degree of any difficult fixed star in the specified location.

2. Check whether the longitude of one of the planets involved in the difficult aspect/configuration is the same as any natal planet in the country?s natal chart (provided you have a ?natal? chart of the country).

Let?s discuss number one (I think everybody would know about number 2). Let?s say that you have Saturn oppose Pluto where Saturn happens to be near 18 Taurus. So, Saturn would rise with the star Algol in my place but not in Washington. We would expect that the opposition has more effect in my county than US.
Saturn was also in Aries you would say (before it comes to 18 Taurus it must have passed 4 Aries where Saturn would then rise with Algol in Washington but not in my place). However, when Saturn passes through 4 Aries, it might not be making that opposition aspect with Pluto!
See the difference?

7
Astrojin:
Very interesting and informative post..thank you! We need a lot more of this kind of in depth thinking regarding the stars, about "how and where they influence" (to quote Johndro's old book) Thanks again for this post!

8
Thanks Astrojin,

As usual a very thoughtful and insightful post. Your in a very select group of Skyscript members whose posts I frequently save for further study!
Fixed stars: Primary, Secondary or none at all?
Primary if configured with the natal planets, secondary if not.

Application: Event, Electional, Horary, Natal, Mundane?
All of them! Having said this, I find that the same fixed star could give very different meanings in different charts.
Could you elaborate what you mean by fixed stars in a natal chart. Are you stating you consider them primary in a natal chart only if aligned with a planet? What about an angle? Or are you suggesting you consider fixed stars of primary importance for natal but less so in other types of astrology? I am a bit confused where are are coming from on this point.

I fully understand your concern about using stars outside the ecliptic for zodiacal projection. How far out do you go either side of the ecliptic before you reject a star?

Regards,

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

9
Hello dr. farr, Mark and astrojin,

you are waving a very informative and illustrating thread here in this thread, really. It's a pleasure to follow your thoughts! :' :D

Thank you very much for your reply in detail, Mark!

Regards,
Johannes

10
Hello MarkC and everybody,
Thank you for the compliments!
Sorry for the late reply?
Could you elaborate what you mean by fixed stars in a natal chart. Are you stating you consider them primary in a natal chart only if aligned with a planet? What about an angle? Or are you suggesting you consider fixed stars of primary importance for natal but less so in other types of astrology?
As mentioned before, I simply do not use the ecliptic projection degree for any fixed stars that lie outside the ecliptic band).

I would consider the fixed stars that rise/culminate/set/anti-culminate with the angles for both fixed stars that lie in and out of the ecliptic band (Primary Consideration).

I would consider the longitudinal conjunctions of fixed stars with angles (and even some Lots) for fixed stars that lie within the ecliptic band (also Primary Consideration).

I would consider the longitudinal conjunctions of planets with the fixed stars that lie within the ecliptic band. For natal astrology, I would want to see that the planets involved are in powerful houses and the stars in their visible phase (primary consideration). Usually I limit to the personal planets (may be up to Mars). If Saturn and Jupiter are important (conjunct a cusp of an angle and/or ruling an angle), I might still include them in natal astrology. For mundane astrology, I would include all of the planets.

I would also consider the fixed stars that rise/culminate/set/anti-culminate with the planets for both fixed stars that lie in and out of the ecliptic band. I take this as Primary Consideration if the planets are powerful e.g. posited in the angular houses and the fixed stars are visible during the night of birth (i.e. the fixed stars are in their visible phases). I take them as secondary if the planets are weak. As I said before, I would only consider the planets from Mercury up to Mars in this method for natal astrology. I would still include Jupiter and Saturn if they happen to be on an angle and/or ruling an angle in natal astrology. I would definitely use them in mundane astrology (which I would also include the three trans-Saturnian planets).
I fully understand your concern about using stars outside the ecliptic for zodiacal projection. How far out do you go either side of the ecliptic before you reject a star?
About 9 degrees above and below the ecliptic. I take this band because Venus can travel with slightly more than 8 and a half degrees above and below the ecliptic. The other planets (I am considering only up to Saturn), do not seem to travel further than Venus (in terms of ecliptic degree). The other reason is because that?s the rule of thumb many astrologers/astronomers seem to use for the ecliptic band.
Maximum celestial latitude for Venus
20 Feb 1902 8d36m and 15 Sep 1911 -8d43m.

11
astrojin wrote: I would consider the longitudinal conjunctions of planets with the fixed stars that lie within the ecliptic band.
I don't take stars in longitude too, but it is obvious that traditional authors mention stars which don't lie on the ecliptic, like the Head of Medusa, Algol, for example.

In directions it's obvious that we can project their zodiacal degrees as we do with the rest of planets, but in natal I use Cieloterra method, ie I use their position in mundo and then I compare with the the same position for planets.

About star at the angles I follow Astrojin method, this is very easy because every astronomical software gives rising, culminating and setting time for stars.

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

12
I don't take stars in longitude too, but it is obvious that traditional authors mention stars which don't lie on the ecliptic, like the Head of Medusa, Algol, for example.
It has to be said though that the traditional ecliptical projection method seems to work very well at times with stars outside the normal band of the ecliptic. For example Algol on Princess Diana's Venus or malefic Algorab on the ASC and martial Betelgeuse on the Moon of the first of the 9/11 attacks on New York.
About star at the angles I follow Astrojin method, this is very easy because every astronomical software gives rising, culminating and setting time for stars.
Maybe you can just help clear up something that I find a bit confusing. Using strictly astrological software such as Brady's software Starlight I can see how we can trace the stars co-arising with the four angles in local space. However, I believe you use an astronomical software package called Starry Night. How can you trace stars co-arising with the Midheaven using such software? Doesn't the culminating position of stars listed in this way reflect the local horizon Zenith rather than the Midheaven aligned to the ecliptic? Or does the astronomical definition of the term 'culminating' equate to the same thing?
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly