On Stars

[Clelia Romano]

Dear All:

I think we have a big problem using stars.

When Ptolemy developed a method to use the ecliptic poles and to project the stars into the fixed path of the Sun, the ecliptic, he was doing so to have an idea of where they were in a certain year in order to compare their position in the future. That will give to the astronomers a referential point to measure the precession(by the stars apparent movement).

The problem is that the stars are not IN the ecliptic, but in the 8th sphere.

The ecliptic, the path of the sun, is not a symbolical matter, it is an astronomical fact. Life is directly dependent of the Sun so to take his path as a reference point to construct the astrology has an astronomical base.
The star do not revolve around the earth and neither the earth around them ( I´m using geocentric reasoning).

Parans (that is the same thing as paranatelonta, meaning “rise together”), is a visual fact. You can see Venus rising in the orient in the same time you see let’s say Aldebaran. In a visual way they are in conjunction: this is a real fact and it is the only one that is able to support the use of stars in astrology IMO.

Maybe I am not seeing some important aspect and that is the reason why I´d like to discuss the question here before I make a mistake when writing it down in the book I´m writing.

I did an experience with some charts. I erected them using the sidereal module and I looked at the stars in the same sidereal way. I figured out that the stars that really have a meaning in the native life using tropical zodiac appeared in important places (on the MC for example) in the sidereal charts.

For example: Castor appears in neat conjunction with Mars in Cancer in the tropical zodiac. The native always wrote a lot: novels, poetry and presently astrology.
In the sidereal chart, Castors appears with 1’ of orb of the MC point (which fell this time in Gemini where the real star Castor is).

What do you think?

best

Clélia
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com

[Ed F]

I agree that the most important stars are those that are on the horizon or local meridian (mundane measure). I also think that stars that are in ascensionally equal positions to the planets are of a second order of importance, not far behind the first. Of course, then you have to define what you mean by "ascensionally equal" which gets into the classic quadrant house systems and primary directions debates. For me, "equal proportions through their respective semiarcs" works.

- Ed

[Clelia Romano]

Hello Ed:

[Ed F]

Almost using parans. I definitely pay attention to "co-passages" of the angles: situations where planets and/or stars are crossing one or more of the mundane angles at the radix or event time. These are a subset of the parans identified by most astrology programs.

The problem I have with parans as presented by the programs is that an arbitrary period of time around the radix/event is selected, and all co-passages that will occur during that time are listed. But if you think about it, while there is a potential relationship there that has or will come to fruition, it's not at fruition in the moment of the chart. And these relationships in theory apply to all times during the selected period. To me, that is not as powerful as being on one or more angles at the time of an astrological event.

- Ed

[Steve]

More to the point for Debbie’s last question. Quotidian Angles are your own INDIVIDUAL daily angles that change from day to day, calculated from an accurate birth time. At times, these individual daily angles become sensitized with various planetary contacts that produce events relative to one’s living environment.

Steve
_________________
With all our modern knowledge and scientific equipment, and with the the great strides made in mathematics, we astrologers have done nothing to even remotely compare with the achievements of the astrologers of antiquity. Cyril Fagan

[Clelia Romano]

[Ed F]

Yes, I use the same approach, in paran and angular.

Regards.

[margherita]

Hello Clelia, Ed and all,
for stars I mostly use the ones at angles, not by longitude anyway, let alone the ones which are on the ecliptic, like Regulus.

Anyway I don't use too many of them, just the beibenie (around 30 more or less according the different authors) and the few ones listed in Medieval/Renaissance lists.

And when I'm not lazy, I put them in the birthchart according their semiarc, because stars are "fixed" they move just of the motion of the sphere, as Bezza says,

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net

[Mark]

Hello Clelia,

Your post raises a number of astrological issues. Rather than rattling off a quick response I will get back to you in a few days after researching out a few texts.

I am intrigued what the purpose of what you are writing on this topic for. If you are going to critique the zodiacal projection of stars on to the ecliptic I have to state others have made that case already. In particular Bernadette Brady in her books and talks for over a decade. I believe Guiseppe Bezza teaches this in mundo approach to his students in Cieloe Terra too. If you are working from a traditional perspective though you do have the dilemma that this technique seems to have been used since hellenistic times. To reject this approach would seem to be a denial of much of the tradition itself.

[Clelia Romano]

Hi Margherita!

[Mark]

[Ed F]

[Mark]

[Clelia Romano]

Hello Mark:

[Clelia Romano]

[