16
astrojin,

thanks for trying to enlighten me! i found the quotes from valens on the 'renewed nativity' which is understood to be 'solar return' quite fascinating. my impression is they are quite central to your own consideration of the other predictive techniques you follow based on your final comment that i have included at the bottom.

i don't know that i was familiar with the idea of decennials, but you've explained it well here. i can see one being more inclined to use decennials then the firdaria.. it is an interesting topic. on the one hand i see the wisdom in giving the beginning of life to the moon and the final part to saturn for example. i just don't understand why one would marry this symbolic connection to a persons life in an important predictive manner with arbitrary years given to each.. doesn't make sense to me, but i would like it if someone can explain how it makes good logic to them.

i am curious to know if you use bound/term lords in any context? i am trying to understand the concept of distribution better which hinges on the bound rulers while being partnered with any planet making a direct aspect to the degree of whatever one is directing (primary directions).. i can see the sense in the relevance of any planet making an aspect to a particular degree.. if one directs the ascendant for example to a degree that happens to include a planet/poiint that is in aspect to the degree of the directed ascendant, it will make an obvious connection- an aspect in modern terms.. however, this concept of the ruler of the bound being the primary distributor requires one accept the concept of bounds or terms as defined by the astrologers of old.. the different systems for this - egyptian, chaldean and etc. must present a nagging problem for those who use them! if you have any thoughts on the use of bound lords, i'd be curious.

i fail to see any real difference between directing the chart one sign per year - profection, and one degree per year - tertiary progression that is similar, but not the same as a solar arc direction. whether it is one degree or one sign per year - the motion is in the same direction.. one can do converse directions too which throw a different light on the relevance of the diurnal motion as well. i know that converse primary directions have been in use for some time and are considered relevant by some of the older astrologers.

thanks for the conversation,
james
astrojin wrote:If we fix one finger on the degree of the ascendant and let the chart turn according to diurnal motion, the first planet rising would be the first planet ruling the native and the next planet would be the second planet that rules the native (and so on and so forth). This gives rise to the advancing from planet to planet according to the decennials. (This is one of the reasons that I do not use Firdaria! The Firdaria method does not resonate to me theoretically as well as empirically).
astrojin wrote:Solar arc direction (including secondary progression) uses the motion of the ?other? or planetary motions along the zodiac (as opposed to the above which uses the motion of the ?same? or diurnal motion).
astrojin wrote: This is the reference where Valens instructs the astrologer to marry the profection system with the renewed nativity (which is the solar return).

We could say that the solar return is the door by which the indications promised in the natal chart are to be manifested.