CA vol I: ch.19 - aspects
Part VI of Deborah Houlding's annotated edition of Lilly's Christian Astrology, covering pages 105-114 |
|

| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lihin

Joined: 14 Dec 2009 Posts: 422 Location: Mount Kailash
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:31 pm Post subject: Years of the planets |
|
|
Good evening,
Could a fellow forum member kindly direct me to authoritative texts explaining in detail the calculations of the 'least, greater and greatest years of the planets', ex gr. the 'greater years' being Saturn 57, Jupiter 79, Mars 66, Sun 120, Venus 82, Mercury 76 and Moon 108. The total of the non-luminaries is 360.
Thanks and best regards,
lihin _________________ Non esse nihil non est. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
favro
Joined: 29 Mar 2010 Posts: 14 Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Years of the planets |
|
|
| lihin wrote: | | Good evening, Could a fellow forum member kindly direct me to authoritative texts explaining in detail the calculations of the 'least, greater and greatest years of the planets', ex gr. the 'greater years' being Saturn 57, Jupiter 79, Mars 66, Sun 120, Venus 82, Mercury 76 and Moon 108. The total of the non-luminaries is 360. |
maybe the following could help: http://www.arhatmedia.com/periods.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lihin

Joined: 14 Dec 2009 Posts: 422 Location: Mount Kailash
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:53 am Post subject: Closed iterative circle of definitions? |
|
|
Good morning,
Thank you, Mr Favro. In the article you reference by Mr Robert Hand, one reads:
| Quote: | | "The great periods are not derived from actual astronomical cycles, but are the sums of the degrees allocated to each planet in both the system of terms according to the Egyptians and that of Ptolemy, at least for the planets." |
If there is no astronomical validation or foundation for the great periods, have we a closed iterative circle of definitions, namely 'great periods' and 'planet totals of confines'? Can one perhaps understand the Renaissance astrologer Monsieur Jean-Baptiste Morin de Villefranche's rejection of the confines as having no basis in the skies?
However, the 'Chaldean' system of confines does not exhibit the problems underpinning the other two, Egyptian and Ptolemaic and, in contrast to the Ptolemaic, there are no controversies about the 'correct' version.
Best regards,
lihin _________________ Non esse nihil non est. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|