Related to the above is the traditional way of designating a direction: irrespective of whether it is direct or converse – that is, no matter which point is kept fixed and which is moved with the primary motion – it is always the significator that is said to be directed to the promissor, not the other way round.

So, the main difference is the way one presents it and secondly, not to go in pre-natal times.

Martin Gansten wrote: These matters are discussed on pp. 32-37 and 68-70. (From p. 33: So the significator’s symbolic motion through the zodiac is actually accomplished by the zodiac being moved across the natal significator, which is kept fixed.

Hello Martin,

it's a pleasure to follow this discussion and to see you taking your time and energy and patience to answer all these questions - after you have written two books of the theme.

Is my understanding of your quotation above correct, when I paraphrase and augment it thus?

The natal significators are casted in two identical chart wheels.

In primary direction the natal significators of the outer wheel become the significators, the natal significators of the inner wheel become the promissors.

Now the outer wheel, together with the significators (the former natal significators), is moved clockwise, accordingly to the (apparent) direct motion of the zodiak , i.e. from the east to the south and then to the west, from the left to the right.

The inner wheel, together with the promissors (the former natal significators), is not moved.

By this approach the primary directions will always make the directed significators of the outer wheel come to the right side of the promissors of the inner wheel, after they have reached and then passed those.

Many thanks in advance.

pankajdubey wrote:So, the main difference is the way one presents it and secondly, not to go in pre-natal times.

Yes, those are two major points, of which the latter is the more important. There are many other technical differences between modern and earlier authors (e.g., which planets and other points to consider, which aspects to use, how to equate arcs to time, etc.), but the two pairs of technical concepts that have been almost universally misunderstood since the late 19th century or thereabouts are direct/converse and significator/promissor.

johannes susato wrote:it's a pleasure to follow this discussion and to see you taking your time and energy and patience to answer all these questions - after you have written two books of the theme.

Thank you for those kind words.

Is my understanding of your quotation above correct, when I paraphrase and augment it thus?

Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Sorry about that. The sort of biwheel you describe makes sense because the primary motion does cause the zodiac and the planets in it to move in that way, but I don't know if there is any software that uses such a biwheel. Perhaps there is, but it would need two zodiac rings: one fixed and one moving clockwise. And I'm not sure how easy it would be to display the varying rising, culminating and setting times of the signs correctly. But if it could be done, then the inner wheel (showing the fixed chart elements) would contain the significators, as long as we are talking about directions in direct motion. Such a biwheel would represent the perspective of observational astronomy.

What Morinus (and perhaps other software with a primary-directions chart function?) does is visually simpler but involves a bit of make-believe: it has the promissors inside, as you say, and the significators outside; but the significators are shown as moving forward through the zodiac, that is, anticlockwise. In reality (relatively speaking), the apparent zodiacal position of a significator at any given point in time indicates the part of the zodiac that was at that time directed to the natal place of the significator.

I hope that wasn't too confusing.

For what it's worth, and for those with a more visually oriented learning style, here is a video that may perhaps be useful. It was made to show how a traditional armillary sphere works, but I have found armillaries a very useful tool for understanding primary directions:
https://youtu.be/M0chCdFEaP0

thanks so much martin!

i was quite fascinated about the idea of parallex with the moon as my own chart has the moon close to the ascendant and also very close to the border of libra and scorpio - late libra in lahiri and scorpio in krishnamurthi ayanamsa... what happens when i choose parallex, it is in the first degree of scorpio in either system.. but i was unable to find the option for this in morinus software until you pointed it out in the appearance settings to opt for topocentric... again, the words are one thing, but understanding what they mean - another... so, i take it by opting for topocentric - this is including the parallex of the moon.. i wouldn't have known this otherwise...

at any rate, now with the changed settings indeed i see the 4 year difference between the zodiac direction involving the moon and the mundane direction of same... thanks for clarifying this for me.. i have been reading the book from front to back for the most part.. i thought i would save looking at the end part of the dynamics of the software til after, but i can see the wisdom in looking at it beforehand too... thanks for your suggestion on this too...

i have a few questions related to your emphasis on the terms of the directed ascendant for the most part... am i mistaken in thinking you put a lot of emphasis on the terms of the moving angles and the directed ascendant in particular?? also - if the rising sign is in the terms of saturn, does this put greater emphasis on the natal and solar return location of saturn?? i believe i am picking this up from reading the last section of chapter 8 with example L... it seems to me the terms, and where the directed ascendant is in particular is a real focus for your analysis of the chart, to the point if i was to put what i sense is a heirachy of your emphasis on importance - terms of the moving ascendant would be at the top of the list.... is this an accurate impression on my part? regardless of that, are you dovetailing this particular focus on the terms with great consideration of where the planet is natally and in the solar return year?? it seems you are!

i recognize how it becomes a challenge puting a number of predictive techniques into a blender and coming out with an end result.. i have yet to read chapter 9 - which i plan on doing tonight and which goes into this... maybe it is a bit premature for me to ask, but it seems everyone has to make a choice based on their experience, of what to put greater emphasis and value on.. i have been noticing a number of the examples seem to line up with my own thinking that the angles of the solar return charts and which house they land in the natal chart, has some bearing on the nature of the year.. you haven't talked about this yet, so perhaps it is not something that was discussed by these earlier astrologers from different cultures...

anyway- here is how it looks to me the emphasis you place in order of importance..
terms - directions - kind of a tie, as so much emphasis is put on the terms as i read it..
followed by where the profection lord is and data from the solar return.... the profection lord and data from the solar return seems to factor in a lesser way then the terms and directions.... is this an accurate impression of your work and emphasis??

fi haven't really worked with the terms any.. your book is encouraging me to consider them, but i struggle with adopting a system that has no basis in anything concrete other then the past... has anyone gone into explaining how they came about? i know there are 3 options to choose from - egyptian or dorotheus which is what you use, but there is also ptolemy and one other order for the terms - i am forgetting... has anyeone tried to fathom why this system is in place and how it came about?? i know this is getting off the topic of your book, but of course i am still curious and if you have anything to say on this - i would be most curious...

to go back to the profection lord - i did read the section from the translation and free download from brill of the book 'jewel of astrology'... i seem to have read some of the different ways of evaluating which planet to choose for lord of the year from one of ben dykes books - i can't remember which one... maybe it was a translation of bonati... the indian author dr. charak puts a fair amount of emphasis on which house the profection lord lands in, in the solar return chart.. perhaps this is his system, or one he has gotten via different sources... i would only say that to go back to an earlier idea - how an astrologer puts emphasis, or not, on a certain factor in all of this is fairly subjective or based on the individual astrologers particular observations and experience... not having as much experience with some of this - and basically none with an emphasis on the terms, is the motivation for these additional questions i ask... thanks for your generousity here!

the video was quite good... i was wondering how you felt about the use of the tropical zodiac in the video, LOLOL! regardless it was a nice video that showed in a more 3 dimensional way, what we are all trying to understand on a flat surface, or computer screen... thank you again..

Let me see if I can answer all of that.

Yes, correcting the moon's position for parallax is the same as plotting it from the actual place of observation, which is what topocentric position means.

Origins of the terms: Ptolemy mentions three systems, but there were several others floating around the ancient world, including India (where they were called triṃś??ṃśa). The Egyptian terms seem to be the one closest to the fragmentary Babylonian evidence for the terms. John Steele's 2015 article 'A Late Babylonian Compendium of Calendrical and Stellar Astrology' (Journal of Cuneiform Studies 67, pp. 187-215) is the most recent source I know of for the latter. I don't think anyone has been able to demonstrate a clear rationale for the lengths and rulerships of the terms (which is probably the reason several authors, including Ptolemy, came up with their own variants), although you can see some general tendencies. Steele suggests they were used as divisions both of the zodiac and of the calendar, but that doesn't help in explaining their order or extensions.

Your metaphor of putting everything in a blender is sadly accurate for a lot of modern astrology. I have tried to avoid that by using a hierarchical approach, following ancient and medieval authors. Subjectivity can never be completely eliminated, but one can strive for some order! I know you are a musician, so think of reading a chart as playing a piece of music: every performer will give his or her unique interpretation, but playing the notes in their proper order is preferable.

Yes, directions come first and activate both the ruler of the terms (the divisor) and any planet/aspect encountered (promissors). Planets present in or aspecting the terms in the revolution are important too. Annual profections, which determine the ruler of the year, come next. And yes, the one significator I always look at is the ascendant. Depending on what I am looking for, the luminaries and midheaven may be equally important, especially if one of the luminaries is clearly the hyleg (this can be a murky area). Very occasionally I will use a non-luminary planet as a significator (usually in the context of longevity).

Divisors, promissors and the ruler of the year are all chronocrators or 'time lords', and the nub of prediction is understanding how they express themselves in the natal chart as well as the revolution. The houses they occupy are part of that.

Yes, armillaries necessarily show tropical divisions, or you would need a separate sliding measure to show the first point of Aries moving relative to the equinox point. I suppose it could be done, but you don't really need a three-dimensional tool for a simple subtraction.

This classic British comedy showing how all notes were played but the music was still different.
https://youtu.be/R7GeKLE0x3s

thanks martin!

i was busy reading to the end of your book and also looking at ben dykes most recent translation of abu ma'shar - on the revolution of the years of the nativities which dovetails in interesting ways with your book.... first off, i have to congratulate you on a really great book! the fact you provided numerous examples to back up your particular hierarchical order is very clear, orderly and instructive!

i think so much of astrology from the point of view of the individual astrologer is seeing what does or doesn't work.... regarding modern astrology putting things in a blender and seeing what comes out - i am not sure i was describe morin this way, although he was known for using relocated solar return charts, just as one ''more modern'' example of having to grapple with yet another consideration... it is clearly the same issue with converse directions... once they are incorporated, there are a whole other set of terms and considerations that complicate the process.. it is not to say that converse directions don't work, but any approach that has less options to choose from, is an easier one as i see it.. the same is with the choice of zodiac verses mundane directions... obviously it would be easier to only lean on one of these options, as opposed to having to consider both..

yes, i am a musician..the parallels with astrology and music can be made in countless ways! peoples musical tastes can be far apart from one another which is not to say that one type of music is better or worse then another - just different.. the guidelines in music can be very specific - reading a chart - or very broad - improvising off a chart with a more general road map... this could be described as the difference between classical music and contemporary jazz music (see Esbjörn Svensson Trio for an example of the later)..i think this is how astrology is too... i see the system you are working within as more classical in nature... i think your book is quite good and laid out very well.. if a person wanted to explore many of the topics described in ben dykes book, they would do well to consider getting a copy of your book, as it is a hands on book, as opposed to an only mostly theoretical or historical one..

i personally find the important emphasis on terms or bounds challenging at this point.. this is mostly because i haven't worked with them any.. reading your book was challenging for me on this account as so much importance was given to them as i read it.. and i find terms or bounds as arbitrary as the dasas used in indian astrology.. this is not to say that either of these systems don't work.. obviously they do, as many astrologers use them.. i think the second most challenging part of the approach you've taken is not including converse directions or zodiac and mundane directions on an equal footing... i believe i understand the rationale how this is also being true to an older system used in the deep past ( classical), but the bit of insight i got from taking a look at them in the example of chart J, leads me to believe they are more important or central then you let on in the book! for the sake of brevity, it was probably a smart move on your part and one that would be a lot less time consuming, to make these choices.. and it is in keeping with how you convey they were done historically up to a certain point in time..

if you ever get the book published again, i have one small suggestion... on the appendix 4 in the back with the data for the charts, it would be helpful for some - i know for myself, if the location as opposed to the longitude and latitude coordinates were given. i can find the names of the location with some work however, so it is not a very big deal.. also with this to provide the page number for where all these charts are would've been helpful specifically for a person reading chapter 9 where you sometimes do or don't reference the page number of the chart you are discussing and to find it one has to sleuth back to see it.. as a consequence i put the page numbers of the charts next to the data on that appendix page i refer to for my own ease of considering all your work with the examples easier to follow..

thanks again martin! i think it is a great book that would be of benefit to all astrologers interested in this topic given the many first hand examples you have given.. and given that you have clearly laid out your approach that is easy to follow and understand too... i highly recommend your book! although i have finished reading it, i plan on examining the charts more closely as it is really a first hand opportunity to consider your hierarchical system to see how it could be fine tuned to my own tastes and personal observations - both with the examples in your book, but in my own life!
cheers james

martin,

i am having trouble replicating your observations on example E in the book - pages 132 and 133.. you mention moon to the opposition of mars with latitude, and mars to the opposition of saturn with latitude.... the first one i can get on the speculum.. the 2nd one i am unable to get... i can see that mars is essentially opposite natal saturn at 6 sag 13 for august of 1994, but for some reason this doesn't show up in the speculum...

what it means is that if i know what to look for and i work hard enough, i can find it, but there must be a better way for me to approach picking up these directions - the speculum being the most obvious way - but it seems prone to errors, or lack of details... here is the speculum for age 25-50...

btw - just looking closer the moon to opposition of mars is a mundane direction.. the zodiac direction doesn't happen until 3 years later... how do you personally decide which one to follow?? thanks james

for anyone following this, this is about pages 132 and 133 in martins book..

following thru with example E... i am trying to work this out more... here is a biwheel with example E on the inside and the directions on the outside... this is for 1996 - may 1st so gives a basic idea of what is connecting with what... i am still baffled about the terminology- but on this biwheel it seems to me moon to the opposition of mars works... mars to the opposition of saturn looks more like saturn to the opposition of mars here... however - again - this doesn't show up in the speculum.. i can only get this via looking at the biwheel and punching in a particular date - 1996 may 1st in this example....



a few other comments.. i suppose because this picture above is of terrestrial as opposed to celestial - in the inside chart it appears moon and saturn are in a square in the natal chart which in a typical chart as seen below - they appear more like they are in a trine to one another.. it looks to me in the chart above that mars has moved to be opposite moon, while mars has also moved to be square saturn in this year 1996.. they appear brought together at the same time for this time frame.. but again - i don't see this in the speculum and i am wondering why that is... any help or feedback appreciated.. thanks..

In order for Mars to show up as a significator in the speculum, you need to select it as a significator under Options > Primary directions.

When you are using a significator that itself has latitude (that is, any planet other than the sun) and want to see its conjunctions/oppositions with other planets with latitude, Morinus gives you two options, neither of them perfect:

1. Under Zodiacal > Use latitude of, choose Both and Bianchini. The drawback of this is that latitude will be assigned to trines and sextiles as well, which in my experience does not give correct results.

2. Under Mundane vs. Zodiacal, choose Both. This will produce a list that includes mundane sextiles, squares and trines, but you can disregard those and just look for mundane conjunctions and oppositions. This is what I do.

I have tried my best to explain my take on latitude on pp. 68-70. As for the PD charts, I rarely use them myself, but generally speaking some distortion is unavoidable when you try to represent three-dimensional relations in two dimensions (the same is true of maps of the world, etc).