Horoscope for grand conjunction 1 by Sh'zar Dear all, According to various arabic writings, such as [On Historical Astrology] written by Abu Ma'shar, grand conjunctions between Jupiter and Saturn are considered as the most fundamental factors for mundane astrology. I'm not sure, however, which method would be correct for 'horoscope for the conjunction' or 'horoscope of the shift of the conjunction in the triplicities'. It seems that the correct answer may be one of the following : 1) a horoscope calculated at the minute of real conjunction between Jupiter & Saturn 2) a horoscope calculated on the syzygy(new moon or full moon) just prior to the grand conjunction 3) Aries ingress chart(revolution of the world) for the year when the grand conjunction is going to occur 4) a horoscope on the syzygy just prior to 3) I think 1) might be the most plausible in theory, but I'm not certain that astrologers of those days possess the practical exactitude(to the minute or second) for calculation of conjunction between slow-moving planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Abu Ma'shar actually mentioned, to be sure, degrees of various planets and points to the extremely fine unit - like "242 degrees 25 minutes 17 seconds 10 thirds 6 fourths" - I don't think those numerical values are actually correct to the finest unit. What could be the correct calculation? I hope someone adept at arabic historical/mundane methodology will be kind enough to give me some good advice. Quote Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:25 am
2 by amandaW Yes the question of exactitude of the orbit computations is one I wrestle with a lot. In addition to the grand conjunction - which at least is unlikely to be out by more than a day, we also have the upcoming movement of Regulus into Virgo (tropical). This must also be significant as it is the last of the 4 "royal" stars on the cross moving into a mutable sign. From memory I think Solar fire gives this as a date in November 2011 but I was wonering what the margin or error is on it. It might not be possible even to identfy which lunation that occurs in - it may for all I knwo be aout by a year or so. I am wondering, though, why you think the new moon before the grand conjunction is important and not the one immediately after it? Also I wonder whether the Aries ingress is the only choice - why not Capricorn or why not the ingress immediately before ( I do think the before does work for the ingresses in a way that I'm not convinced about for lunations though as they have always been used as a forward looking construct.) Quote Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:46 am
3 by Tom Lots of good stuff in these posts. Thank you both. I started a thread on the mundane forum using the grand conjunction of 1762 as a possible US chart and posted some stuff about the upcoming eclipse on September 11, 2007 and how it relates to that chart. If you're interested take a peek. There are some very thoughtful responses over there. I would use the moment of the conjunction and not be too worried about the accuracy. Older astrologers did just fine without computers, so whatever computer generated calculations can give us should be good enough. I'll relate, to the best of my memory what Rob Hand explained about the use of these charts several years ago in a lecture. Keep in mind, mundane astrology is the most difficult of all branches as it requires the use of several charts not just transits to particular charts. All charts have to be examined and it must be determined how they relate to one another the all this has to be put together in order to make a prediction. It ain't easy. We all struggle with it. Try to look at the charts as being nested together and relating to one another. We don't have to use every chart in the nest, but we do have to start with the right one and find the others that work with it. If for example we use the 1762 grand conjunction for a US chart, the conjunction that immediately preceded US Independence, we note that the 1980 grand conjunction is strongly related to the 1762, but the 2000 grand conjunction is not as well connected. Then for say, the war on terror, the 1980 chart is more relevant than the 2000 chart, which in turn may be more relevant to something else. The first chart is the chart of the initial cardinal grand conjuction in a series. This re-occurs about every 960 years. I think the last one was in or about 1702. The conjunction charts that occur each 20 or so years after that are connected to that one. Conjunctions that follow those that are due to retrograde motion are connected to the initial conjunction of that period. The way I understand this is that eclipses are to grand conjunctions what solar returns are to nativities. Ingresses as well as New and full moons are also useful but as we step down in the hierarchy we get more and more specific as to times and events. Transits are, at best, triggers of events signified in the higher charts. USA March 18, 1762 GMT 4:41 PM Washington DC (or New YOrk or Philadelphia. THey all give about the same chart) 4 Cancer rises There are numerous connections by other charts to this chart and subsequent events. The event chart for the attack on Pearl Harbor has these angles reversed to the degree. The 1980 grand conjunction duplicates the signs on the angles. The Sun and Mercury are on the 1762 Moon. The pre 9/11/01 eclipse occurs at 13 Capricorn close the 1762 Moon and has Mars, god of war conjunct the eclipse point by antiscion. This eclipse also has connections to the 1901 eclipse. 1901 is the pre WWI conjunction. Osama bin Laden has taken his grievances back to the divisons of the world created by the end of WWI (It's all Warren G. Harding's fault). There are connections to the 1980 chart with the 9/11 event chart and with the upcoming 9/11 eclipse. So we can see the issues are complex, but fascinating once we begin with an appropriate chart. This not to say that other charts, such as the July 4, 1776 charts, have no merit, but we have to admit that there is far more to the USA than its independence. The keys here are to start with the correct chart - easier said than done. Then we have to find connections to that chart with subsequent charts, eclipses, ingresses lunations and even transits, to explain and understand the events. Unlike natal astrology, no one pays anyone to do mundane astrology, and so far less has been written about it and far less work has been done with it. So in one sense there is a lot of new ground to be covered for those willing to take the time. Speaking of ingresses, some astrologers use all cardinal ingresses, but the Aries ingresses are usually considered more important. I hope this helps a little. Thanks for wiring. Tom Quote Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:29 pm
4 by Lunlumo The Great Conjunctions, as they were already called by the Ancients, should alsways be taken into account when an event of highest mundane importance is ahead. Therefore, without any doubt, the JU/SA-conjunction in March 1762 concerning the USA has a "generic" quality. Quite a number of hints can be found: Looking at the sec. progr. one finds Pluto conj. IC in 1861 - the beginning of the Civil War. From about 1915 to 1960 Mars is conjunct AC - including two World Wars and the years of the Cold War. In the early 60s it was Ur conj. IC - the years of riots and the fight against racial discrimination. SA conj. IC was around 1972 - the end of the Vietnam war including a certain amount of national depression. And as always one may (and should) have a look at the regressice secondary progresions: then it's Pluto conj Sag. AC in 1917 - Wlson's crusade for "democracy". In 1929 it was SA/UR conj. IC - the begining of Depression. However, in spite of all this I do not think that this chart can actually replace the chart of the state itself. (But I know the problem - the endless discussion concerning the "true" US-chart...) Greetings LL Quote Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:19 am
Progressive New Moons of the 1762 chart 5 by Lunlumo .. sorry for mentioning Transsaturnians - won't happen again. Let me add another hint - this time neglecting the "outer aliens": Using the progressive moon phases of the chart you recommended one finds (e.g.) that the progr. New Moon preceding the Civil War is on the first degree of Cancer - showing that natinal identity was going to be the no 1 topic of the forthcoming years. At the same time there was Mars Opp. Saturn. It seems worthwhile looking at a number of other moon phases. I had a look at this one: the New Moon of Nov. 15, 1762 / 20:57 GMT. It will take effect at the beginning of the following decade - around 2011 - and it shows a strong Capricorn Mars conj. MC - when referred to Washington it is quite exact. Mars is square Saturn which is in Aries - in other words these two planets will be in reception. So Mars is tremendously strong - and moreover it rules the New Moon which is in house seven in Scorpio. Mars - the God of War ... Jupiter is conj. the rising Node and both are conj. AC - so there will be another impulse to "teach the world" - what kind of lesson will it be the next time? Greetings LL Quote Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:54 am
6 by Tom Hi, I'm not concerned so much about mentioning the three outer planets in delineation. We just don't use them as sign rulers on the Traditional Forum, and that keeps some confusion away. Rob Hand uses them and he considers himself a medieval astrologer. Personally I shy away from them, but for discussion purposes as long as they aren't used as sign rulers, it's OK. Asteroids, hypotheticals and other such modern conventions don't belong on this forum. The real purpose in avoiding them here is educational. Many moderns use the outers almost exclusively. We like to demonstrate that the original seven can be very revealing by themselves. Thanks for writing. Tom Quote Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:50 pm
7 by Tom I found my notes, unfortunately only some of them, from a lecture Rob Hand gave in May of 2002 on The Chart of the Modern Era. The First Saturn - Jupiter Conjunction in Aries in the modern era is: May 21, 1702 NS 7:18 PM GMT London, UK The conjunction occurred at 6 Aries 36. When the conjunction changes elements it is called a mutation conjunction. This occurs about 200 - 220 years after the Grand conjunction. The conjunctions that occur every 20 or so years Hand said is called a "little" or "minor" conjunction. The last mutation conjunction occurred in 1840-41. We it switched from fire to earth signs. My notes also list the Aries Ingress that preceded the May 21, 1702 conjunction. Ingress March 21, 1702 2:11 AM GMT London, UK Unfortunately the next page in my notebook has been removed, and the page following that deals with horary. What follows is from my notes. Abu Mashar said this cycle takes about 960 years. Hand says he is in error. The actual time is closer to 795 years. What is of interest or of perennial interest is the so-called US Presidential Death cycle. This was first noticed by Luke Broughton and the theory goes like this: Every President elected in a year ending in a zero beginning in 1840 (1840 - 1860 1880 etc.), has died in office until 1980. Ronald Reagan survived an assassination attempt. Interestingly in that year we experienced an odd occurrence, the conjunctions switched from earth to air. The 2000 conjunction was in earth. To the best of my knowledge no astrologer has ever com up with an astrological reason for this phenomenon. A closer look reveals that the phenomenon isn't as neat as we are lead to believe. The first President to die in office was William Henry Harrison, elected 1840. The next President to die in office was President Zachary Taylor (thought I was going to say Lincoln didn't you?). He was elected in 1848. The next three Presidents to die in office were all assassinated: Lincoln (elected 1860), Garfield (elected 1880), and McKinley, elected 1900). Broughton died in 1899 and would not have known about McKinley's death so he based his on the first three and did not include Taylor. So this isn't as neat as it seems. Woodrow Wilson almost died in office and some think he was so close to death for so long that his wife carried out the Presidential duties. At that time there was no provision in the Constitution to temporarily turn over power to a Vice President. If the President was alive but disabled, he was the President until he died. The next President to die in office was Warren G. Harding, of natural causes but conspiracy theorists were not born in November 1963. Rumors persist that Harding's wife did him in and ran off with the family doctor. I don't think legitimate historians give much credence to this idea. The next President to die in office was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was the only President to serve more than two terms. He was elected four times, the last time being in 1944, but he was elected in 1940 and died of natural causes. John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960 and was murdered in 1963. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and attempt was made on his life in 1981 only months after his term began. There is no clear cut cycle here. If the 20 year conjunctions are somehow involved, it hasn't yet been demonstrated as to how. Following the theory that the 1762 conjunction is a suitable conjunction for the US, it would be a subsidiary of the 1702 Conjunction. Tom Quote Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:35 pm
8 by Sh'zar Thank all of you for kind replies and valuable advice. amelia, I think syzygy is a kind of reference point for a certain amount of period. In other words, the period between a new moon to the next full moon, and all things which come into the world & all events which occur during that 14.7 days are represented by the new moon chart. We can predict some general flow of their fate with the new moon chart, namely. (Maybe we can think about conventional hyleg calculation method of Bonatti and Omar : Syzygy points are able to affect some nativities born after a specific new moon or full moon) The next syzygy, of course, can be very helpful and effective for precise prediction. Therefore, I think, a specific grand conjunction is generally supposed to be represented by a syzygy occurred just before the conjunction. As for ingress charts other than Aries ingress, I agree with you. Other ingress charts cannot be taken lightly. Tom, I'm especially grateful for your detailed explanation. I'll try to use the moment of conjunction for 'horoscope for the conjunction' as you advised. Then I'll analyze all possible radical charts for relevant mundane affairs and identify effectiveness of each chart. Collective thinking and diversified analysis for multiple associated charts can be the most upright solution for mundane astrology. Lunlumo, I also make use of transsaturnians- they're vaild in connection with seven traditional planets, particularly in mundane astrology. Did you mean, by the way, Sp-Pluto or Sp-Uranus formed conjunction with natal IC? or Sp-IC to natal Pluto / Uranus? Quote Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:54 am
9 by Lunlumo @Sh'zar, hmm, among others I was referring to the regressive secondary progressions (not knowing, by the way, if they are used outside Germany or outside the "Continent"): Example: the regressive chart of the 1762 conjunction which Tom mentioned when related to October 2nd, 1761 (using secondary progressions) corresponds to the year 1929. SA/UR are found on the same degree conjunct IC (eactly). The more I study the 1762 conjunction, the more I am convinced that it has a lot to say about the history of the USA. (Thanks, Tom.) Quote Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:40 pm
JU/SA-Conjunctions 10 by Lunlumo @Tom Certainly the SA/JU Conjunction in Aries that you mentioned deserves attention. However, astrological tradition teaches that the first conjunction in a new element constitutes a new era - not matter if it is Aries, Leo or Sagittarius. One has to remember that there is the following hierarchy: I: First conjunction in fiery element - ruling for about 800 years each, II: Subsequent conjunction in the other elements - ruling for about 200 years each III. the "minimae" - ruling for about two decades The conjunction that took place in May 2000 was a "minima" conjunction. It exerts its effect from 200 till 2019. The conjunction that happened on Dec. 31st 1980 belongs to group II - first conjunction in a new element (air). As to I: That was on December 18th, 1603. Now, as you have mentioned: The problems are the "irregular" conjunctions - I call them "jumpers". The one in 2000 was a jumper: it was the last one to "step back" into the element of earth. The following one will definitely establish the new element. Some astrologers maintain that not the 1980 but the 2020 conjunction marks the change into the new element. I doubt that they are right. And (having studied the "Great Conjunctions" for nearly 20 years) I am convinced that the first contact - despite a following "jumper" marks the decisive step. (This has been widely discussed among astroloers over here in Germany, Austria, France and other European countries... and one may say that the problem has meanwhile been settled - but the number of books on astrology that have been translated into English is practically "nil"...) As you were mentioning the 1842 conjunction: A closer look will prove that the 1802 conjunction, and not the one of the year 1842 "ruled"the 19th century and the greater part of the 20th century - including World War I and II. In other words: the aforementioned conjunction of the year 1603 is the one that should definitely be given priority - although it was followed by a "jumper". It took place with SA/JU on the seventh degree in Sagittarius - which is conjunct the AC of the US-chart. But - as you rightly said - so far no astrologer has been able to solve that mystery - the mystery of the jumpers. With respect to the jumper of the year 2000: Actually it is not a mystery, it isn't even riddle: I just marks the fact of total materialism that is ruling the world at present. LL Quote Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:31 pm
11 by Tom I'm packing for a business trip, leaving tomorrow, and I may be out of contact for a week or so. It depends on how well the internet is working where I'm going. I don't have time to go into this post in detail and I wish I did there is lots of good stuff here. One has to remember that there is the following hierarchy: I: First conjunction in fiery element - ruling for about 800 years each, II: Subsequent conjunction in the other elements - ruling for about 200 years each III. the "minimae" - ruling for about two decades I am quite certain that you are correct that this is the way these things were looked at in the past. I also don't doubt that the hierarchy is worth studying and knowing. I have to admit, though, I have a hard time with anything "ruling" for a period of 800 years. I mean look at the people who thought up this system. Even given the logic behind it, how would they know if this was correct? This is why I was looking for connections from one chart to another. It seems to me that this is a logical way to determine upcoming events. I do note with some sadness your observation that there is a great deal of fine astrology going on that has not been translated into English. I wish it weren't so, but I'm sure that it is. However, Lunlumo, your English s excellent and I hope you decide to continue to post here and share all that you know. I will be paying attention. Thank you for writing. Tom Quote Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:59 am
"Super"-conjunctions 12 by Lunlumo Tom, thank you for your kind words. You are certainly right - a period of about 800 years sems to be far too large as to "handle" it in a more or less meaningful way. But taking a closer look one finds that these "Super-Great Conjunctions" indeed seem to generate a new epoch. Take the one of the year 769. This was the beginning of the Middle Ages. King Charles the Great was about to re-create the Roman Empire at that time and was made Emperor by the Pope some years later. The conjunction was in Leo - and SA/Ju are conj. Sun - so this is really a royal chart. When referred to Central Europe the conjunction is in house two. This, too, corresponds with the course of history: the underlying impulse was to create social communities (in castles, villages, towns ..) that enabled a life in security. The 1603 conjunction (Dec, 18 /in SAG.) was immediately followed by the settlers who came to North America (1607 - "Jamestown"). It has a lot to say about the Anglo-American culture and values. It is also connected with the spirit of Modern Times and its dynamism in that it gave birth to Empiricism and Rationalism - it was the time of R.Bacon and R. Descartes). LL Quote Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:36 am