thanks martin

yes - what gets skewed is the way the ecliptic is portrayed, and i believe this is largely to do with trying to incorporate two completely different angles into a system - ascendant axis and midheaven axis.. with this attempt to mutate them into one 'house system' we get a 12 house system that is antagonistic to the 12 sign system which predates it.. well that is how it looks to me at any rate... there are a multiple of house systems to choose from, but generally only 2 - 12 sign zodiac systems to choose from - tropical or sidereal..

clearly placidus didn't invent mundane aspects, but he did appear to invent the placidus house system with his name attached to it.. maybe he invented a lot of concepts, but perhaps most of them are based on sound astronomical reasons for doing so.. mundane aspects appear sound astronomically speaking.. i don't know the difference between parans and paranatellonta ( an italian sounding world - placidus was italian), but obviously that is not it...

i think any house system which tries to meld 2 different reference points into one is problematic.. that's my personal opinion obviously not shared by many others.. i recall being indoctrinated into astrology with the placidus house system as the default... as a natural rebel, i haven't changed my position on this and continue to question some of placidus's ideas, but regarding mundane aspects as i understand them - this isn't one of his ideas i reject.. as for bowsers use of campanus house system - i don't like that either.. to each their own i suppose...

I don't see that the use of risings/settings at the horizon and culminations/anticulminations at the meridian are antagonistic. They are part of the same natural cycle, and both were used in Egypt prior to the introduction of the 12-sign zodiac there. But you are right that there is a built-in tension between the two perspectives, which seems to have existed since the beginning of horoscopic astrology.

As for zodiacs, if you count each ayanāṃśa as a separate sidereal zodiac, you can get enough to rival the plethora of house systems. :-)

clearly placidus didn't invent mundane aspects

He did, though, or at least as far as I'm aware. Some ancient sources mention aspects calculated by rising times, but not by semi-arcs (that I know of), which is what mundane aspects are typically taken to mean. But perhaps you're using it as an umbrella term for any aspects not based (exclusively) on the ecliptic?

i don't know the difference between parans and paranatellonta ( an italian sounding world - placidus was italian)

Paranatellonta is Greek and means 'rising along with'. It was used of stars rising with particular degrees of the zodiac. Paran is an abbreviated form, but the concept has been expanded, in ways that others can probably describe more accurately than I.

thanks for the response here martin..

what is antagonistic is trying to incorporate 2 different axis - ascendant and midheaven, and making a 12 house system out of it which is not related to the 12 sign system that everyone uses - tropical or sidereal zodiac. the various ayanamsa's are antagonistic too, but that is another separate issue..

regarding mundane or 'in mundo' aspects - i will take your word on this, as i am ignorant of the history on them.. it was in watching that ken bowser video which i shared earlier, which got me going on this, as rising, culminating, setting and anti-culminating - the title of this thread - are the basis for these mundane aspects.. here is the link again for anyone interested.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaoIxIyF3ao&t=10s

in this video bowser makes a very convincing case for the use of 'mundane aspects' thru the example of napoleon bonapartes chart.. now it appears he is working with a rectified time for this chart off john worsdales work, as memory serves, as the birth time for napoleon is speculative.. and it is different then what adb offers on his birth time.. https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Bo ... %C3%A9on_I

but leaving aside all that, he makes a very convincing case for the use of these aspects, as the ecliptic aspects don't explain the nativity nearly as well! it made me think of taylor swifts chart which coincidentally also has a jupiter-uranus opposition in her chart.. i couldn't explain the huge success of taylor swift in the skyscript thread i devoted to looking at her chart... the mundane aspect brings these 2 planets closer together, but not with the sun, as bowswer shows in his video on napoleons chart, but regardless it seems these 2 planets coming together indicates the possibility of great success - if these 2 charts are anything to go on! i am getting sidetracked here, but wanted to bring all this up because it seemed related to the question/s posed by durahan in his initial post...

whether these mundane aspects have any relevance or not - at a superficial glance, it appears they do, but no one is working in this area of exploration that i am aware of..

thanks for the clarity on these terms being used - parans and etc. etc.it seems to me there is some confusion in the use of the terms to apply to stars verses planets, or a mix of both.. although 'mundane aspects' or in mundo aspects appears to be used by bowser primarily with regard to the planets themselves, i suppose they can apply to stars as well..

on a tangentially related side note, i find it quite interesting how some astrologers will use placidus houses where whole signs are - what is the word - enclosed inside of a particular house ( i just remembered the modern word - intercepted - where the sign has no house, but then proceed to use profections where again - like magic - there are 12 signs/houses for use!! mixing and matching old and new ways of thinking is an interesting challenge, especially for someone who is just beginning in astrology..

james_m wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 4:46 pm what is antagonistic is trying to incorporate 2 different axis - ascendant and midheaven, and making a 12 house system out of it which is not related to the 12 sign system that everyone uses - tropical or sidereal zodiac.

The point I tried to make was that, both conceptually and historically, the 12-sign zodiac is one reference system (originating in Mesopotamia), and the use of risings and culminations is another (found, with respect to the decans, in Egypt). Of course it is possible to ignore the meridian (what you call the midheaven axis) and only use the horizon (the ascendant axis), leading to a system of equal houses, but it's not the case that the midheaven was introduced later than the ascendant, or that the horizon/ascendant is conceptually linked with the 12-sign zodiac. (The notion of 12 houses is, of course, and I don't think anyone would deny that it was modelled on the signs. That's the underlying tension I referred to.)

on a tangentially related side note, i find it quite interesting how some astrologers will use placidus houses where whole signs are - what is the word - enclosed inside of a particular house ( i just remembered the modern word - intercepted - where the sign has no house, but then proceed to use profections where again - like magic - there are 12 signs/houses for use!! mixing and matching old and new ways of thinking is an interesting challenge, especially for someone who is just beginning in astrology..

You assume, then, that profections should be based on houses? I think I'm right in saying that most ancient and medieval authors speak of them as progressing by one sign (not house) per year, sometimes expressed as 30 degrees per year. Astrologers who use the technique today tend to speak of a second-house profection year, third-house profection year, etc., but you don't typically see that in earlier texts (except for the relatively few instances where authors explicitly profect by quadrant houses). So I don't see any conflict between using ecliptical divisions for profections (or indeed for other things, such as aspects) while using quadrants for house division. That's what most people seem to have done in the medieval and early modern periods, up to and including William Lilly.

thanks martin

you are a wealth of historical astrological knowledge! i appears i misunderstood you in the previous post then. yes, early astrologers used both axis, but that can be done a number of different way.. the midheaven axis can be included within the equal house system too, and which is typically the case and how i work.. it is not to underestimate the importance of the culmination or anti culminating point, but for different reasons then the rationale many use for all the other various house systems in place today that are ''time'' based like placidus..

that is interesting about what you say - profections were done by advancing the sign as opposed to the house.. no one seems to talk anymore about intercepted houses, and i haven't seen anyone mention intercepted profections, lol...

i do see the basis for the 'quadrant' or 4 house system - based off the same words in the title of this thread - rising, setting and etc.. i also enjoy how the french couple shot a lot of holes into it too, lol..

Just as a final comment/clarification, I did mean that the meridian/MC was used by at least some ancient astrologers to define the 10th and 4th houses. I have yet to see an actual historical example, in ancient or medieval sources, of regarding the MC as a floating 'sensitive point' falling in some other house than the 10th.

james_m wrote: Sun Jan 21, 2024 4:46 pm on a tangentially related side note, i find it quite interesting how some astrologers will use placidus houses where whole signs are - what is the word - enclosed inside of a particular house ( i just remembered the modern word - intercepted - where the sign has no house, but then proceed to use profections where again - like magic - there are 12 signs/houses for use!! mixing and matching old and new ways of thinking is an interesting challenge, especially for someone who is just beginning in astrology..

Hi James: I'm directly addressing you on this because it's a wee bit off the main topic but applies to your rumination above:.

First, a little background.
In the Indian astrological scriptures, or Shastras, signs are synonymous with houses. In the Brihat Jataka (6th century) Chapter 1, sloka 4, and Saravali (8th century) Chapter 3, sloka 8, it is explained that the sign (Rasi) and house (Bhava) are the same. Wherever in the sign the ascendant (Lagna) appears, it becomes the 1st house, the next sign is the 2nd house, the next sign is the 3rd house, and so on. This is identical to what is called in the west, Whole Sign Houses (WSH). This is the most ancient system mentioned and used within the living tradition of Jyotish. This hoary system is also used in the Jaimini system of astrology. Other house systems crept in later.

No interceptions, ever, in the ancient Indian sign/house-based division or whole sign house system.

Now more directly to your comment. There is a timing system within Indian astrology that is identical to profections called Sudarshana Chakra Dasha but counts from house to house instead of sign to sign. Since the WSH system is used, signs are the same as houses.
[Note that bhava in the quote below means house.]

Sudarshana Dasha Chakra is described in BPHS Chapter 74, sloka 19-20.
The sage said: O Brahmin! Now I will tell you about the effects produced every year and every month by the twelve bhavas in their Dashas and Antardashas according to Sudarshana Chakra. Under this system every one of the twelve bhavas beginning from the 1st, is allotted a Dasha period of one year. Thus, every year in 12 years a bhava becomes Lagna of the year and the remaining become 2nd, the bhava of wealth, 3rd, the bhava of brother, and so on. (This means in the 1st year the 1st bhava will be Lagna and the 2nd year the 2nd bhava will assume this role. Ultimately, in the 12th year, the role of Lagna is taken over by the 12th bhava).

Also, a must-watch video by Chris Brennan and Arabic academic scholar Ali A Olomi, which directly relates to this discussion. In fact, I recommend this video to anyone interested in the history of house usage in astrology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5sHzoN ... 2&index=18

Here's just a couple of the many pertinent quotes by Olomi in the video:
AO: In the Medieval Islamicate tradition, if you’re reading the sources, from Masha’allah to Al-Khayyat, even Al-Buruni, all of them are using whole sign houses, and it remains so up until the 18th century. We have Safavid charts, we have Timurid charts, Mongol charts, and they’re all whole sign houses; all of them, with, again, minor exceptions.
AO: Zodiac and house are the same; they’re interchangeable. Where you’ll see the big difference is in when they tell you about how to pick which house it is for a particular topic. And they’ll tell you adad, or they’ll say hisab (count); that’s an indication that maybe they’re working in the sign-based for what a particular house means, or what particular sign is associated with a particular topic.

There's a lot more to talk about on this topic of how WSH is used in the scriptures of Indian astrology, but this will give you another POV for consideration.

Be Well.

AJ wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 9:59 am In the Indian astrological scriptures, or Shastras, signs are synonymous with houses. In the Brihat Jataka (6th century) Chapter 1, sloka 4, and Saravali (8th century) Chapter 3, sloka 8, it is explained that the sign (Rasi) and house (Bhava) are the same. Wherever in the sign the ascendant (Lagna) appears, it becomes the 1st house, the next sign is the 2nd house, the next sign is the 3rd house, and so on.

This claim, while frequently made, is not true. What the two verses do in fact say is that the Sanskrit words rāśi ('heap'), kṣetra ('field'), gṛha ('house'), ṛkṣa ('star'), bha ('star') and bhavana ('house') are all used synonymously to refer to the signs. (Remember that what we call a sign was called a 'house' in Greek too, whereas what we call a house was called a 'place'. The Sanskrit authors took over this Greek convention.) There is no mention whatsoever of the ascendant or of counting houses, and the context in both texts is a description of the zodiacal signs, their names, subdivisions, etc., not of the houses.

This is identical to what is called in the west, Whole Sign Houses (WSH). This is the most ancient system mentioned and used within the living tradition of Jyotish. This hoary system is also used in the Jaimini system of astrology. Other house systems crept in later.

It would be interesting to see any sort of actual historical evidence for these statements (perhaps in a different thread, though, and except for the fact that many Indian astrologers today use the signs as houses: that is not in dispute). As for the Upadeśasūtra attributed to Jaimini (usually regarded as the foundational text of that system), there is no evidence of its existence that I am aware of prior to the 18th century.

thanks aj!

the video you've linked to is interesting to watch also.. i never heard of the fellow chris is interviewing before..

martin

thanks for the additional commentary in response to me... quoting you "Just as a final comment/clarification, I did mean that the meridian/MC was used by at least some ancient astrologers to define the 10th and 4th houses. " if i can be so bold - you say 'some', but not all.. what did the others do? thanks..

thanks also for sharing your perceptions on aj's commentary.. did you watch the video that aj shared, and if so, how do you explain the discrepancies around this topic? also - it is rather curious that indian astrology has been happening for many centuries and the primary system of whole sign houses has been in operation their for many centuries, but not just since the 18th century for example.. it appears the insights of the fellow chris brennan has interviewed reflects this same approach taken in the islamic world... astrological information and approaches were shared across cultures... how different cultures processed all this is reflected in the primary approach that they took from the various sources... that they are different, or the same is all very interesting!

regarding profections by sign or house - it seems to me if profections were done by house in a quadrant based system, it would allow for intercepted signs.. the fact the signs are emphasized implies it was signs, not quadrant based houses, that was the basis for this system... but i am stating my own view with no scholastic pedigree to back any of it up...

i appreciate in an earlier post you mentioned (The notion of 12 houses .... was modeled on the signs.)

you also appear to be saying there's no difference between signs and houses in your quote which follows - "What the two verses do in fact say is that the Sanskrit words rāśi ('heap'), kṣetra ('field'), gṛha ('house'), ṛkṣa ('star'), bha ('star') and bhavana ('house') are all used synonymously to refer to the signs. (Remember that what we call a sign was called a 'house' in Greek too, whereas what we call a house was called a 'place'. The Sanskrit authors took over this Greek convention." maybe i am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like these terms were interchangeable...

james_m wrote: Mon Jan 22, 2024 5:09 pm thanks for the additional commentary in response to me... quoting you "Just as a final comment/clarification, I did mean that the meridian/MC was used by at least some ancient astrologers to define the 10th and 4th houses. " if i can be so bold - you say 'some', but not all.. what did the others do? thanks..

It depends what you mean. In practice, as I said in my Valens paper of a year ago (and as an aside, it will probably take a long time before I have the mental energy to deal with the ins and outs of that again, but I still stand by my arguments and conclusions), most people probably did use whole signs for general purposes, but that wasn't taught as a principle, and hence doesn't qualify, in my view, as a system. Whole-sign aspects and whole-sign lots aren't separate systems either: they are convenient approximations from a period when all calculations were done by hand. The few ancient authors who describe how to set up houses without reference to the MC use (variants of) what we would call equal houses.

I don't watch videos if I can help it, but I recommend reading about houses in, say, Abū Maʿshar. It's not all whole signs.

also - it is rather curious that indian astrology has been happening for many centuries and the primary system of whole sign houses has been in operation their for many centuries, but not just since the 18th century for example..

I'm not aware of a single Sanskrit source that teaches the systematic use of signs as houses, so I would question the word 'primary', except in the sense of a commonly used shortcut. I also think many students of astrology (not least Indian astrology) would do well to read some of the scholarly works that exist on the 'construction of tradition'. Sometimes 'forever' just translates into 'in living memory', typically less than 100 years.

regarding profections by sign or house - it seems to me if profections were done by house in a quadrant based system, it would allow for intercepted signs.. the fact the signs are emphasized implies it was signs, not quadrant based houses, that was the basis for this system...

Signs were more commonly used, but quadrant-based profections are mentioned by Valens (again, discussed in my paper) and in more detail by Abū Maʿshar and some Indian Tājika authors. And yes, when two cusps fall in one sign, then another sign will be intercepted.

you also appear to be saying there's no difference between signs and houses in your quote which follows - "What the two verses do in fact say is that the Sanskrit words rāśi ('heap'), kṣetra ('field'), gṛha ('house'), ṛkṣa ('star'), bha ('star') and bhavana ('house') are all used synonymously to refer to the signs. (Remember that what we call a sign was called a 'house' in Greek too, whereas what we call a house was called a 'place'. The Sanskrit authors took over this Greek convention." maybe i am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like these terms were interchangeable...

They were interchangeable but only as words for 'a sign'. Houses (in the modern sense of that word: places counted from the ascendant) are not mentioned at all in these verses. Sanskrit works, which are mostly written in verse form, are rich in synonyms with different scansions. Thus, for instance, Aries can be called Kriya (from the Greek Krios), Meṣa, Aja, etc.; 'planet' can be graha, khaga, kheṭa, nabhaścara, etc.; and 'sign' can be the various words given in those two verses.

martin

thanks for your commentary...

it is an interesting recommendation you make about "reading about houses in, say, Abū Maʿshar. It's not all whole signs." after watching the video that aj shared ( and which i also recommend), i happened to see a video on benjamin dykes arabic translation of abu ma'shars titled ''Persian Nativities IV: On the Revolutions of the Years of Nativities''... in this video dykes suggests that what was contained in the arabic version of this book was left out in most or all of the latin editions... without going into detail, the subject unfolds from about the 55 minute mark for about 15- 20 minutes.. it's quite fascinating and relevant to our conversation... it goes directly into some of my questions and our discussion here.. now, maybe that is a coincidence... here is a link to the interview from about 4 years ago..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU9TF7zeQUo

Martin: I appreciate the exchange of ideas, and my comments are not meant to escalate into a debate. However, I feel compelled to respond, prompting me to expand on certain points.

While I appreciate your academic qualifications and your interpretation of the Sanskrit terms used in the verses cited, I disagree with your conclusion that signs and houses are not synonymous in early Indian astrology. To reaffirm, in the 6th century Brihat Jataka, as mentioned before, Varāhamihira, early in the work, used the word bhavanam for the Lagna rasi.

Your use of the phrase 'is not true’ regarding the cited passages, IMO, is misleading, as I have had dialogue with authentic Pundits over this issue in the past, and they agree with this perspective that signs=houses here. Then there is the weight of oral tradition and parampara to consider, which I know you do not consider valid.

There are those who do draw the bhava (house) chart along with the Rasi (sign) chart per the 15th chapter of Phaladeepika by Manteswara, but this 14th-century text is much later than the 6th and 8th-century Brihat Jataka and Saravali. I do not question the use of the bhava chart, only that it came later after the ancient WSH.

Recent scholarship in Islamic studies is also worth considering for insights because it mirrors this topic of the evolution of the use of different house systems. The timeline seems in step with innovations in Indian astrology. One reference is noted in my first post, and James has mentioned another.

Here are additional concepts from the ancient texts supporting the notion that signs and houses are synonymous:

In the calculation of bindus for Ashtakavarga, nowhere is it asked to take the house positions. To do otherwise is contrary to the ancient texts.

In the 2nd Chapter of Brihat Jataka (Ranjan ed), pertaining to the aspects of the planets, the language used in sloka 13 is, for example, ‘…Saturn, aspect the third and tenth houses,...’ yet aspects are from sign to sign. Another example of sign=houses in context.

The influence of planets in transit is considered from the Moon sign, not the house. Sign and house are not distinguishable from each other in this regard. Even if the Moon was on the last degree of a sign, the moment Saturn enters a previous sign, we speak of SadeSati. If you were to include both sign and house, you would have a SadeSati of at least 10 years instead of seven and a half.

In longevity or Amsa calculations, Brihat Jataka and Saravali do not ask us to take house positions that are distinct from sign positions. This only comes much later, with Sri Pati and others.

Yoga positions, which are unique to Indian astrology, are always applied sign=house; these are interchangeable.

When we take Arudha, we take the signs, not the house. I grant you that the origins of Jaimini are suggestive of a late introduction into Indian astrology, but there are just as many that affirm its antiquity. It is still noteworthy that Jaimini only uses the ancient WSH system that identifies signs synonymous with houses.

My intention is not to engage in a prolonged debate on this topic. This serves as my final input, but I value our discussions. Let's move forward with mutual understanding and explore other subjects where we can continue our conversations, given our differing viewpoints on this matter.

Be Well.