james_m wrote:generally i see a lot of regurgitation of others ideas in astrological circles. i suppose this is to be expected if you think of people having to spend a lot of time following the wisdom of others for any length of time before being able to come to an independent position on their own.

If that's your ethos, you're probably in the wrong forum.

james_m wrote:generally i see a lot of regurgitation of others ideas in astrological circles. i suppose this is to be expected if you think of people having to spend a lot of time following the wisdom of others for any length of time before being able to come to an independent position on their own.

I've heard a lot of things stated without the source but I see nothing wrong with using popular analogies if it helps the understanding along. It wasn't meant to be taken too literally because in doing so any analogy will break down. As Schmidt would say, a perfect analogy tells us nothing. It is in the exception that we see how something is analogous.

In response to fortune releasing, I've seen a few cases where a windfall (unexpected source of money) comes in ZR Fortune to the places of benefics. I had this in my own chart in 1990-91 and have seen several other cases with clients as well. Occasionally I've seen losses as well when ZR Fortune handed over to malefics (one client lost $50,000 in savings when fortune releasing handed over to both Mars and Saturn in the 5th from fortune) in a bad investment with no benefics able to cast rays into the place, but the ZR fortune seems to be much more visible with health issues IMO.

james_m wrote: ...many astrologers made a correct prediction using a number of different '''keys''' to arrive at their conclusion.

"The form changes, but the Essence remains."

I think all this has been pointed out already but as I'm mentioned in the opening post...

james_m wrote: as i am always asking questions, i wonder if either of you or someone else would care to comment on why saturn would be considered the lord of the profection and not the moon which is the natural ruler of cancer the sign of the profection year?

I haven't read through the article. However the profection comes to Cancer. This makes Moon the Lord of the Year except for the fact that Cancer is tenanted by another planet, which therefore the Moon hands over lordship to, in this case Saturn. I am unaware of Valens dismissing a time lord due to it not having good dignity (if I follow your question right). I think you understood this point in a later post but it was in the article the first time too so I'm not sure if you were still in the middle of reading it or if there was some confusion still.

As Konrad says, if we never allow planets with no dignity to be time lords, then we'll never have time periods which reflect that quality.

astrologers have to make a decision about what predictive techniques they are going to work with.. there are a lot to choose from... obviously less is better.. one can be comfortable in not having to process as much data or weighing any competing data that will inevitably result.. this is what i am talking about - time lords competing with one another for supremacy.. the time lord of the profection can be different then the time lord of the solar return

Can you explain what you mean? Perhaps find an example? The profected lord is an important time lord over the native's year, but that doesn't mean we cannot find additional information or layer this up with more information from either other time lords, or, quite typically, examination of the solar return. We might want to examine what house in the solar return that the profected lord falls in for example and add this additional information into the mix. This is not about supremacy and battling one signification against the other to find some victor, this is about weighing up mixed testimonies and blending with regards particular context. In addition you want to find where the solar return ascendant falls in the nativity.

Other time lords may have more 'long term' periods that they operate under for example, such as circumambulations.

It is not about which one has supremacy, it is about recognising that there is a complexity which we can start to gradually shade in by inclusion of additional information. Of course if we are not comfortable or not capable of doing this we can strip back and use less information.

Of course some time lords are topical and contextual. Releasing from Fortune would tell us something about the material such as the body and finances. Spirit might tell us about career or some social recognition. We shouldnt' assume all time lords have lordship over the same themes.

Really what we should be trying to do is start up layering up some symbolism and examining time lords which get activated so we can track them using something like transits and so on.

zoidsoft wrote:In response to fortune releasing, I've seen a few cases where a windfall (unexpected source of money) comes in ZR Fortune to the places of benefics. I had this in my own chart in 1990-91 and have seen several other cases with clients as well. Occasionally I've seen losses as well when ZR Fortune handed over to malefics (one client lost $50,000 in savings when fortune releasing handed over to both Mars and Saturn in the 5th from fortune) in a bad investment with no benefics able to cast rays into the place, but the ZR fortune seems to be much more visible with health issues IMO.

Thanks, Curtis, sounds about right. If you'll indulge me one more time, you mention the malefics in the 5th from Fortune. Do you see any significance in their house position other than being in the triplicity of the Lot? I know in Valens' text he mentions that the 10th from Fortune is like the MC and so on, but I wonder if topics can be read from the Lot?

Konrad wrote:Thanks, Curtis, sounds about right. If you'll indulge me one more time, you mention the malefics in the 5th from Fortune. Do you see any significance in their house position other than being in the triplicity of the Lot? I know in Valens' text he mentions that the 10th from Fortune is like the MC and so on, but I wonder if topics can be read from the Lot?

I sometimes see both (natal angles and relative to fortune). Schmidt says we study the planets in the natal houses, but their lords and the lords of the lots relative to fortune. Since this is a general principle, this is what I look for. Schmidt explained 3 states from Aristotle's Metaphysics and adapted them to the process of going from katarche (beginning) to apotelesma (outcome) which is similar to the 3 house types, modes, etc... The lord of a lot represents an elevation from potential to energy and then perhaps the lord of the lord an apotelesma (outcome) which he seems to think is analogous to the 12th parts. I don't know what his current thinking on this is if it has changed.

Paul wrote:Can you explain what you mean? Perhaps find an example? The profected lord is an important time lord over the native's year, but that doesn't mean we cannot find additional information or layer this up with more information from either other time lords, or, quite typically, examination of the solar return. We might want to examine what house in the solar return that the profected lord falls in for example and add this additional information into the mix. This is not about supremacy and battling one signification against the other to find some victor, this is about weighing up mixed testimonies and blending with regards particular context. In addition you want to find where the solar return ascendant falls in the nativity.

It wasn't for me but I'll try to give some sample/clarification.
For instance, in my natal chart Venus and Saturn are strongest planets (angular in own signs) and I was naturally expecting while using few techniques that if some of those planets happen to be time lord for some year that suppose to bring up some events which are signified by those planets in my horoscope.
And I've discovered that yes, those planets triggered some expected (within their influence in natal chart) events, but almost each time by using different technicues.
Ones it was while Moon's Ferdaria with subperiod ruled by Venus (about a year), another time with profection and Venus ruling AC, third time with directions while AC was crossing Venus term degrees in sign.
But it was always hard to relate it to some solar return, ot progressions.
And if I started think more complex way, like Saturn is my MC almuten, or Venus is my 2nd house's degree almuten it was hard to follow at any prediction techniques...
But some significant events were not related to any of strongest planets by using any of those technique.
In my career it was only seen all ups and downs by Jupiter's direction (about degree per year). And Jupiter is weak planet, peregrine in 6th. But Jupiter is 2nd ruler of triplicity of sign at my MC. And Esra wrote that second ruler of MC's triplicity showing possible rank in your career...

Martin Gansten wrote:

james_m wrote:generally i see a lot of regurgitation of others ideas in astrological circles. i suppose this is to be expected if you think of people having to spend a lot of time following the wisdom of others for any length of time before being able to come to an independent position on their own.

If that's your ethos, you're probably in the wrong forum.

martin - based on the 'reception' i receive from some here, you might be right!

i want to take up something you mentioned about the importance of the solar return chart to indian astrology as opposed to the traditional western tradition which you seemed to suggest emphasized profections more.. would you like to comment on this more, or is their anything to add to that?

curtis - thanks for your comments which i haven't addressed directly. i liked what you had to say about wealth and how the changes of today make the issue of reading wealth in a chart very different from what they would have been when these traditional techniques were in practice many centuries ago.. the same could be said for predictions on length of life when one thinks of modern medicines ability to extend life well past when a person would have died even up until recently. consider ariel sharon being left in a state of coma since early 2006, but only dying the other day.. how does a person who is determined to read a chart the way the ancients might have go about reading length of life in such an example? i think some of the techniques need to be reconsidered in light of these changes. feel free to comment more on this if you have something more to say. thanks.

this is a general question for anyone here.. if a planet was in the same degree or the same terms or bounds of the ascendant would it alter your viewpoint whereby you incorporated this planet into a shared role as a time lord for the period it remained inside the term or bound of the ascending degree? i suppose this is a way of asking if you would consider a different lord, or a shared role for a year based on the position of a planet in the ascendant..

going back to the issue of conflicting time lords that might be gotten from the primary directions, profection, solar return chart and etc. etc. - there also needs to be an acknowledgement of different terms or bounds where a person can conclude a different time lord based on whether they opt for egyptian verses chaldean time lords as an example.. none of this is all that cut and dry, in spite of the nice analogy of a lock tumbler where everything fits into place and one magically comes up with a good prediction out in advance.. if it was any different we would see more predictions being made, but alas - we generally don't!

paul - read my quote from benjamin dykes in one of my previous posts and get back to me if you still have questions.. it appears you didn't read the quote that i left regarding the bezza example that i used as an example..

konrad - were you already familiar with the quote from benjamin dykes book, or was that covering old ground? the example in the bezza link didn't opt for moon as lord of the profection year with cancer in the ascendant, but saturn instead.. according to the quote i gave, it made more sense.. no need to respond.. my time quoting dykes book is something someone will appreciate.

here are a few links that some here might enjoy.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6916

http://www.demetra-george.com/Hellenist ... edures.pdf

and finally a good post and conversation initiated by astrojin that might be of interest to some.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=

james_m wrote:konrad - were you already familiar with the quote from benjamin dykes book, or was that covering old ground? the example in the bezza link didn't opt for moon as lord of the profection year with cancer in the ascendant, but saturn instead.. according to the quote i gave, it made more sense.. no need to respond.. my time quoting dykes book is something someone will appreciate

I'm not sure I understand the issue. Valens profects everything and looks to see what hands over to what, with importance being given to where the the Sun, Moon and ASC hand over to. The reason Bezza mentions the nocturnal planets in his article is because they are the planets handing over to occupied signs in that year, not because it is a nocturnal chart.

Abu Ma'shar is following a different tradition (one which counts the lord of the profected ASC as 'lord of the year') but mixing it a little with Valens' idea of handing over to occupied places. The reason the Moon would not be considered Lady of the Year is that the Cancer is occupied firstly, and secondly, Abu Ma'shar didn't see the luminaries as being capable of performing as lord of the year. If we alter the profection and make the ASC hand over to Gemini with Saturn, Saturn would still be lord of the year according to Abu Ma'shar.

james_m wrote:i want to take up something you mentioned about the importance of the solar return chart to indian astrology as opposed to the traditional western tradition which you seemed to suggest emphasized profections more.. would you like to comment on this more, or is their anything to add to that?

Medieval Arabic-language astrology (which was already an eclectic tradition incorporating Persian, Greek and Indian elements, among others) was transmitted both to westwards into Europe and eastwards into India during the early centuries of the second millennium CE. This tradition included annual revolutions, which were not part of pre-Islamic Indian astrology. The two systems remain separate in India today, though some practise both.

It's not that the Indians necessarily emphasize profections less; they just have a more complex method of finding the final ruler of the year (which they say should aspect the ascendant in the revolution). But the ruler of the profected ascendant is always considered an important planet.

Konrad wrote:

james_m wrote:konrad - were you already familiar with the quote from benjamin dykes book, or was that covering old ground? the example in the bezza link didn't opt for moon as lord of the profection year with cancer in the ascendant, but saturn instead.. according to the quote i gave, it made more sense.. no need to respond.. my time quoting dykes book is something someone will appreciate

I'm not sure I understand the issue. Valens profects everything and looks to see what hands over to what, with importance being given to where the the Sun, Moon and ASC hand over to. The reason Bezza mentions the nocturnal planets in his article is because they are the planets handing over to occupied signs in that year, not because it is a nocturnal chart.

Valens does seem to make a point that when planets hand over to other planets that they are of special importance for the year. For instance, if it is a 3rd house profection year, all planets that hand over to a planet 2 signs ahead he says are "active for the year" and it seems that he thinks that other handing's over are secondary.

He has a few weird ideas such as if it's a 1st house profection year, that you should skip handing over to itself and hand over to the 2nd from that. At first thought, it makes it appear that one would have a 2nd house profection 2 years in a row, but my guess is that what is really happening is that the planet skips itself in such an instance and prepares for what is next. This might be because he thinks a planet handing over to itself doesn't have the same level of importance; not that it doesn't really happen at all. The context seems to be a way of finding the most important profections and how to rank them. I think in terms of secondary considerations one looks at the place but that Valens would probably have thought it less "chrematistikos"...

He also says that a planet handing over to itself is always bad... which suggests that he does think planets hand over to themselves. My guess is that he might be hinting toward some sort of timing consideration as he says that the order of timelordships is important, that they prepare the way ahead of time for both good and bad.

Sometimes these don't always show up in the examples he uses and there are times when it seems that he breaks his own rules. Perhaps a careful reading of the examples will show which rules are most important.

konrad, i am not as familiar with valens as i am with abu mashar. i actually went and read the introduction of persian nativities 3 again. it is about 52 pages and takes up about 1/4 of the book. dykes explains that abu mashar has got some ideas that are his own and different. i have used this as a reference for what i know about a traditional read on solar returns and profections. i have read the online riley valens material, but wasn't focused on learning profections, or time lords so much as just getting a broad brush view on valens. if these different astrologers have a different view on how one arrives at the profection lord, it wouldn't surprise me. according to abu mashar the lights can't be used as profection lords when the ascendant lands in cancer or leo. perhaps that is different from valens viewpoint, i don't know.

curtis seems to suggest valens is not consistent.. ben dykes gives a bit of this flavour too about abu mashar by saying he is doing things differently from others. that is how i am reading things.

martin, thanks for the quick overview on your perspective of using the solar returns and profections and there importance among astrologers in india in general.

what does valens say about solar returns? i seem to recall astrojin saying that valens does mention them and their importance. can anyone comment?

at this point i am more drawn to solar returns then profections. perhaps this is due the fact that i don't understand the process as well. i insight i got from reading the different ben dykes books is the importance of the distributor which is essentially another type of time lord. this goes with an emphasis on primary directions where the terms or bounds of an important point or planet being directed is essentially expressed thru the bound lord - another time lord concept as i understand it. what i recall picking up in that literature is that any planet directly aspecting a bound acts as a 2nd type of time lord to the bound lord. what i get from all of this is that their are potentially a number of different time lords, depending on how much of the data in the primary directions are considered important. add to this the lord of the profection and the lord of the solar return ascendant and one has a lot of time lords to choose from that are supposed to colour the benefic or malefic nature of any event that might come out of all this.

maybe i am complicating it for myself. i still haven't settled on an approach to primary directions. my studies haven't got to the point where i have confidence in any particular set of options for the primary directions. solar returns on the other hand seem like a no brainer in so far as i believe they offer a lot of insight into events of relevance.. the verdict is still out on profections for me.. they remind me a lot of the artificial basis for solar arc directions and secondary progressions. until i reach a point in my studies where i am seeing results in the data i study, i am mostly relying on solar returns and transits. i like what dykes shares in the introduction to persian nativities book 3 in regards to the role of transits for both abu mashar and mashallah.. while transit info tends to get lumped in with a modern approach to astrology and mostly downplayed by some of the traditionalists i read, it seems to have an important role to play in terms of timing as well, if one knows what to watch.

to go back to a point where i felt a degree of sensitivity about - i can't take the info bonatti was sharing in regards to mundane astrology as an insight into finding the ruler of the profection, i am still not convinced this is true. it would seem to me that a certain means of finding the ruler of any chart is similar.. my question from a few days ago about what happens when a planet is in the same degree as the profected ascendant which could also extend to the solar return or the degree of the primary directed ascendant, would seem to have great relevance. this is part of what i picked up from reading bonattis approach to finding the ruler of the ingress chart. i think it is the same for these charts too. it certainly is in relation to distributor ideas i have been exposed to where any planet in the same degree of the bound or terms where the ascendant is share the role of distributor with the ruler of the bound..

i do think it would be beneficial if astrologers who are commenting here gave more examples to others for learning purposes.. we all have a different orientation to astrology, but we would benefit from seeing how others explain their approach in real examples for today.. i was trying to sort out some of this thinking i could use pope francis's chart.. i had shared what i was looking at in another thread here on skyscript. i am torn over the fact that the time for his chart appears rounded off and the midheaven is at a very early degree of taurus when it could be late aries which would make a big difference in terms of how central mars is in the solar return chart and profected charts with the time i have for him(9pm).. it also shows up in the primary direction data i examined with sun directed to a conjunction of mars. i did not consider what the distributors would have been in all of this, so i am missing a piece of the hellenistic and medival astrologers tool box, but then i have seen no use of this in examples anywhere on skyscript for that matter!

if i come across as poking at the folks at skyscript it is mostly as i would like to see some share their insight and wisdom as opposed to keeping it to themselves.. maybe their is a fear of being wrong, or being challenged!!

and finally - i am sure i have said enough here to be accused of some oversight or negligence and will do the best i can to address any isolated comment i have made that others don't share and want to discuss. thanks!