skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

dykes persian nativities 1 question

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3740
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:57 pm    Post subject: dykes persian nativities 1 question Reply with quote

it has been slow going with this book, but i am now in the section which includes charts beginning page 243 where a discussion of the importance of tripicity rulers for the ruler of sect.. it looks like some of these charts are from dorotheus, or the book carmen astrologicum. regardless of whether they have any connection what is interesting is how no part of fortune or spirit are in these charts and how this part of hellenistic astrology seems to be excluded from the conversation which revolves around the triplicity rulers only. the issue of greatness, eminence and prosperity seem to focus on whether the triplicity rulers are in the angles which reflects my understanding of hellenistic astrology's focus on whether the pof or pos are in the angles.

what i am curious about is the idea that their might have been a point in time where the importance of the triplicity rulers replaced the importance of the part of fortune or spirit? if anyone would like to comment on this, i would be interested. thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mjacob



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 412
Location: Kent - England

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

These charts do not seem to fit in with the methodology used elsewhere. A couple do have the pof placed but not much use is made of it. Planets in angles are indeed considered better than if they are cadent but normally one would look at at domicile rulers of the houses. I have also come a across a similar idea that uses the triplicity rulers of the ascendant instead for a similar purpose.

I certainly have not seen how they are intregrated with any other system or how they fit in with the historic developments though I am more aquainted with this period of astrology rather than the Hellenic upon which it is based.

Later on I seem to remember that Morin said that this method did not offer anything that could not be interpreted better elsewhere in the chart. As far as I can see it is an anomaly.

Matthew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3740
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks matthew. shortly after i presented this i reached page 251 example where a discussion of the chart includes the position of the part of fortune.. the author starts with the triplicity rulers position to give an indication of the chart and finishes off with a consideration of the part of fortune to further emphasize the direction already suggested by the triplicity rulers of the moon - sect ruler of the chart..
then on page 253 to quote "for whenever the lords of the triplicity of the luminary (whose rulership it was) were cadent, look at the lot of fortune (since it signifies the greatest and eminent things), to see if it were conjoined to jupiter or venus or applying to their rays."

hellenistic astrology in my limited understanding of it seems to place great emphasis on the part of fortune, or part of spirit( although i have read very few examples where the part of spirit is used) as compared to the triplicity rulers of the luminary of sect.. the idea of dusturiyyah (arabic spelling) that can happen with the planets associated with either the moon or sun seem to add strength or not to a chart, especially if they land in the angles is considered though. of course planets in angles are always considered stronger in being able to express themselves and if in aspect to the luminary of sect able to offer greater likelihood of power and eminence as i understand it.

what i have a problem with (- i have problems with a lot of ideas i don't fully understand) is how anytime the sun/moon phase is new or full moon the part of fortune and spirit will land on the ascendant/descendant axis.. and if the vertical and horizontal axis to the chart are relatively square, anytime a person is born close to the first or last quarter, the part of fortune will land in either the midheaven or i.c. - in an angle..
it would seem to me that just being born close to a particular sun/moon phase wouldn't be enough to qualify for eminence of imply a chart of significance, but this is what one is told relying on the idea of 'if you find the part of fortune or part of spirit in an angle it implies a chart of prominence or greater eminence.' i find this idea lacks something!

as for saying the triplicity rulers of the luminary in sect landing in an angle giving the chart greater significance/prominence - i have an easier time with this idea if for no other reason having planets in angles does seem to have a stronger connection to a chart where something prominent or eminent is suggested..

the issue of having the ascendant ruler in an angle also seems to emphasize this. i am thinking of queen elizabeth right now when saying this here.. capricorn rising with saturn in scorpio conjunct the midheaven.. saturn is out of sect, but that doesn't seem to change anything here! she is born on the first quarter moon, so part of fortune and spirit square onto the ascendant and land in the angles if one uses whole sign houses.. i think that is less relevant!

i was looking at the chart of iain banks the scottish novelist who has come out to mention he has inoperative bladder cancer and may not live more then a year. here is his chart - http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Banks,_Iain
in his chart we find the luminary of sect - moon - in the sign leo. the triplicity rulers are jupiter, sun and saturn. we see jupiter and saturn are very close to the angles suggesting a life of greater prominence. the part of fortune on the other hand ( he is born a couple of days before a full moon sun to moon differential is approx 162 degrees) lands in 18 degrees away from the ascendant axis.. his ascendant is 17 sag 03 so neither part of fortune or spirit land in the signs on the ascendant axis..

morins approach as i recall didn't factor in the part of fortune or triplicity rulers. he seemed more straight forward in giving the house rulers all the power and focused more strongly on them then he seemed to on the chart as a whole.. i might be mistaken, but that is what i recall from reading books 21, 22 and 23.. i like his approach and clarity in expressing it in book 21, but i don't recall him giving any guidelines to when a chart would be considered more eminent or prominent.. someone can correct me here if i remember incorrectly.

where did you come across a similar idea that uses triplicity rulers of the ascendant for a similar purpose as you mentioned in your post? i am curious. thanks - james
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mjacob



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 412
Location: Kent - England

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:

where did you come across a similar idea that uses triplicity rulers of the ascendant for a similar purpose as you mentioned in your post? i am curious. thanks - james


I am just reading again your post here but in reply to your question I had perhaps read chapter 10 of Abu Ali (Persian Nativities Vol I p. 259) On the Native's Being "Look at the Lords of the triplicity of the ascendant......in the angles or the succeedents....it signifies the good condition of the native in its own time of his life"

On the other hand some sources mention the luminary triplicities, pof and the 11th house but not this.

Matthew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1545

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
hellenistic astrology in my limited understanding of it seems to place great emphasis on the part of fortune, or part of spirit( although i have read very few examples where the part of spirit is used) as compared to the triplicity rulers of the luminary of sect.. the idea of dusturiyyah (arabic spelling) that can happen with the planets associated with either the moon or sun seem to add strength or not to a chart, especially if they land in the angles is considered though. of course planets in angles are always considered stronger in being able to express themselves and if in aspect to the luminary of sect able to offer greater likelihood of power and eminence as i understand it.


I don't think that hellenistic astrologers don't put emphasis on the triplicity rulers as well though, because they do. I think this later post better reflects the situation, focusing on the triplicity rulers of the ascendant and noting if they are in favourable or unfavourable positions and then examining other things such as the lots. This seems to be a common enough pattern in Dorotheus for example and we see something not too dissimilar when Valens points out that triplicity rulers which are angular and free from malefics are more favourable. Of course he also puts great emphasis on the lots as well.

I don't think it's really an either/or case - in the hellenistic tradition the triplicities and the lots were both important.

Generally speaking the hellenistic tradition also had it that the triplicities also divided the life into two halves for example. Often you will see something like a comparison between the first and second triplicity rulers then examining whether one is in better condition than the other and making a comment to the effect that this will reflect the native's life. This is a made up example, but something like "..but if the second triplicity is in its own sign and angular and free from maleifcs, the second part of the native's life will be free from harm and he will prosper". Something along those lines. So I definitely think the triplicity rulers were very important to the hellenistic authors, in some cases obviously more so than the domicile rulers were.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3740
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks matthew and paul for the additional comments here.

i was mostly getting the idea that somewhere along the historical astrology train they hit a bump and replaced the importance of the lot of fortune/spirit with the triplicity rulers in connection with the luminary of sect and their position in the chart. that was / is what i am getting from reading this literature. i am continuing to contemplate this idea and why it might be.

i am familiar with the idea of the use of 2 or 3 triplicity rulers and dividing up the persons life to reflect the persons life based on the order of these too! it is all over this book, but in particular this section i am reading. i can't recall who dropped the 3rd triplicity ruler to go with just the 2, or when that happened historically.

people have to be creative when they don't have an astrological library to consult with. if it wasn't for amazon, abebooks and the like, i would be in much the same boat as some of these ancient writers/astrologers too!

somewhere along the line hellenistic astrology was replaced with arabic astrology keeping in mind the huge amount that arabic borrowed from hellenistic astrology. i am grateful to the fact a few years ago i started reading rhuetorius, fm and other hellenistic authors first! i feel like i am going to go back and read them again to see if i can glean more understanding as a result of this little venture into benjamin dykesville..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1545

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james

I actually thought it was the other way around, that there was only two triplicities used, the participating triplicity not being included. Then in the arabic tradition someone took up the notion of using the participating triplicity and from there divided into three rather than two.

I'm not sure to what level they may have replaced the importance of the triplicity rulers with those of the lots. Do you have something specific in mind where the hellenistic traditional focused or measured something based on the triplicity lords but then in the arabic tradition they used the the lots? I can't think of anything at the top of my head. Certainly the tradition changed obviously, I'm just not sure if I think it changed quite so drastically as this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3740
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul,

i am thinking of it the other way around. these 2 very specific lots- fortune/spirit were more the focus of the hellenistic astrologers and there emphasis was replaced later by the arabic astrologers.. that is my read at this point.. one doesn't see this emphasis on the position of the part of fortune or spirit in an angle so much as one reads of the importance of where the triplicity rulers of the luminary of sect is. obviously both schools work with all of this, but it is a shift that i seem to get from reading this book or even more generally from reading the various books and perhaps some from marks emphasis on these 2 specific lots in relation to more of a focus on hellenistic astrology.

as for the lots - they go crazy with formulas and have enough formulas to sink a greek armada.. all the recent literature trying to bring astrologers up to speed on what these '''hellenistic'' astrologers were doing in the past (joseph crane in particular) only focus on a few very specific lots - 2 of which i continue to mention.. i am not really discussing any others, but i suppose we can if someone would like! i do acknowledge the greater use of more lots by the arabic astrologers, but it is not that which i am interested in understanding better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 490

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello James,
It has been a long time (or at least it seems to me!), since I posted anything to the forum…Hopefully, I don’t get too rusty!
Anyway, on the topic of Eminence and Prominence:
Most of the topical delineations of important things in life (eminence, wealth, profession, etc.) seemed to be gleaned from the fixed stars, the planets and/or luminaries, the houses and the lots.

Eminence:
When the ancients studied the fixed stars, they would have probably looked into the rising and culminating stars, paran stars and ecliptic conjunctions of fixed stars to important personal planets. When they look to the planets, they would look at the triplicity/trigon lords and spearbearers of luminary in sect (and sometimes take a peek at the luminary not of sect). When they look to the houses, they would look into tenth and first houses. When they looked to the Lots, they would look to the Lot of Fortune, Lot of Spirit, Lot of Exaltation and (less so) to the Lot of Basis.

I think that all of these methods seem to indicate eminence in different ways or different types of eminence. The eminence derived from the fixed stars and the planet (luminary of the sect) is referred for those nativities with Destiny. The Lots represent eminence for those nativities with Fortunes. This is in line with the saying “the great have destiny and the rest have fortunes”. The houses (and their rulers) then represent eminence derived through the natives’ hands themselves. Of course, if you have indications in all three, delineations would be easy!
I am not saying that only a few have destiny. Every one of us has our own destiny to fulfil but only a few of us would have a Destiny which affects the great many (not all of us are Alexandar the Great, Bill Gates, Prime Minister, etc.). So, eminence derived from the fixed star and luminary of the sect, tells us whether the native’s destiny touches the destiny of the general public in a way that their lives are also affected by the native’s destiny. Eminence derived from Fortunes is scrutinized from the Lots especially the Lot of Fortune. This is the kind of eminence that one has regardless of his destiny being tied to the destiny of the general public. This is the one who actually rises on occasion and seem to succeed “against all odds” which sometimes are looked upon as simply “luck”. It is actually not “luck” but rather fortuitous (though sometimes they do look as if they have all the luck!). Eminence derived from the houses would be the kind of eminence one works for oneself. It is not a coincidence that the modern astrologers used only the houses (and their lords) for almost everything because in the modern world destiny (and even God) has either been side lined or made irrelevant and fortunes have been deemed to be just co-incidences. “You make your own destiny, you create your luck, you get what you do, the choice is yours, etc.” are the cries of the modern thinkers. And they do have merits! Hence, using only the houses to look into profession in the modern world seems to work (at least in some of the cases). So, the saying above should be changed to something like “the great have destiny, the rest have fortunes but all of us have our choices”. Of course, if you are a modern astrologer who practiced ancient astrology, you would look at all levels because they are all still relevant regardless of the Zeitgeist of the age.

So, in short, I would say that the triplicity/trigon method did not supplant the lot of fortune method. The medieval Arabs lived in a time where family ties, lineage and networking dictate your eminence and prominence. Hence, the triplicity/trigon method would have worked better in the charts that the astrologers looked into (after all, only those people would have the resources to consult the astrologers!). We, however, look into more of those “commoners”. Hence, we tend to find that the house method (and their rulers) seems to work better. Sometimes when we have clients who happen to be of great lineage (destiny based) or those whose luck would sway them into the right or wrong direction, the other two methods would work better.

On the Use of Lot of Fortune in Eminence:
In my opinion (my own!), I don’t think we should use the house position of the Lot of Fortune because:
1. The reason you mentioned (the one with phases of the moon)

2. The Lot of Fortune itself is another ascendant and for Valens, it is sometimes more “mustikos” than the normal house system i.e. it has its own “house system”.

3. Lot of Fortune is not sensitive to house position during the daytime (or night time) but is sensitive to the sign position (Lot of Fortune, like ascendant, changes sign in roughly two hours).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3740
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astrojin,

thanks so much for your thoughtful and informative post! you always hit a home run when you post from my point of view!! it answered my question directly and i resonate very well with all of what you had to say about this.

i am having a discussion on temperament with therese in the sidereal forum. what i have always thought, although very few people talk much about this, is the role of genetics and ancestry in astrology. i think much of where we are in life has a direct connection with our parents and ancestors. i think this would have been especially the case in the deep past. perhaps nowadays there is more flex, but overall i see the importance of our background in where we are capable of going. i don't want to limit our potential in any way, but i think it is a big factor..

astrology tends to overlook this in it's analysis of the chart. i don't think it is intentional.. thanks for your comments and wish you would post more often.. james
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kenneth Johnson



Joined: 12 Aug 2012
Posts: 132
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To answer James' initial question about the source of the horoscopic examples in Ben's book:

Many of the charts commonly used as illustrations by both Masha'allah and his student Abu 'Ali are indeed from Dorotheus. Others are from an unknown source. As Ben points out in his translation of Masha'allah's "Book of Nativities," someone has been fooling around with the data, re-casting all the charts for a latitude of 43 degrees north, thus rendering some of the original Dorothean commentary about triplicities inaccurate and senseless.

When compared to a writer like Valens, Masha'allah in 800 CE puts much less emphasis on the lots in general. Abu 'Ali, writing a generation later, uses them more often. Somewhere along the line, many of the Hellenistic lots made their way back into the Arabic/Persian tradition, so that by the time al-Biruni is writing in 1025, he complains that no one can keep track of all the lots because "astrologers are inventing new ones every day."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3740
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kenneth Johnson wrote:


When compared to a writer like Valens, Masha'allah in 800 CE puts much less emphasis on the lots in general. Abu 'Ali, writing a generation later, uses them more often. Somewhere along the line, many of the Hellenistic lots made their way back into the Arabic/Persian tradition, so that by the time al-Biruni is writing in 1025, he complains that no one can keep track of all the lots because "astrologers are inventing new ones every day."


hi ken,
thanks for your post. it makes a lot of sense and gives a good perspective on the gaps in our understanding based on the long history of astrology we want to understand better.

perhaps this makes masha'allah an interesting study if for no other reason is he represents a position in between valens who used lots and the arabic astrologers who came later who used and created many more.. this would make masha'allah an exception with more of an emphasis on the triplicity rulers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ignis



Joined: 01 Jan 2013
Posts: 40
Location: USA

Posted: Sun May 05, 2013 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When the ancients studied the fixed stars, they would have probably looked into the rising and culminating stars, paran stars and ecliptic conjunctions of fixed stars to important personal planets. When they look to the planets, they would look at the triplicity/trigon lords and spearbearers of luminary in sect (and sometimes take a peek at the luminary not of sect). When they look to the houses, they would look into tenth and first houses. When they looked to the Lots, they would look to the Lot of Fortune, Lot of Spirit, Lot of Exaltation and (less so) to the Lot of Basis.

I think that all of these methods seem to indicate eminence in different ways or different types of eminence. The eminence derived from the fixed stars and the planet (luminary of the sect) is referred for those nativities with Destiny.


Brilliant! I have been trying to understand how Doruphoros contrasts to other indications of eminence and in what context it should be used in Nativities regarding the subject, so this puts things into better perspective for me. If you do not mind me asking astro jin does this view result from the astrological literature, or is it a result of your experiences with the subject? I ask not because I doubt your word, but because I am interested in looking into the source material for myself (if any) so as to facilitate my learning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3740
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi tyler,

astrojin's posts are indeed brilliant as i see it too! i don't know if he comes by skyscript that often but in private conversations with him i can venture to guess that his ideas are based on experience more then any particular book he's read. of all the many posters i have read, he seems to have been able to formulate/synthesize an understanding of the various text to a high point and to also be able to share that when communicating! those are a rare combination of assets! maybe he will be able to comment directly to you, but you could do yourself a favour and type in his name in the search field to learn more from astrojin as his posts are typically brilliant and worth the effort!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated