Under Sun's Beams with an orb of 17 degrees on either side is what is found by Lilly.

My question has to do with whether, you have a planet, for example Saturn, Jupiter or Mars oriental, in the 16th degree away from the Sun.

I'd like to know whether there are any different opinions regarding the orb of Sun's beams because with a scoring of -4 points in Lilly's table of accidental dignities, perhaps it is not truly as bad as that.

I want to open up this point to discussion. That if a planet applies to the Sun it is far worse than if a planet is separating from the Sun. And therefore to give a planet which is oriental and almost out of Sun's beams the same misfortune as it would were it at 9 or 10 degrees and applying...

I think Lilly's table should be taken with a grain of salt - at least don't sit down with a calculator and say "Jupiter has a score of -12 and Venus has a score of -10 so Jupiter is -2 worse".

Basically being under the Sun's beams is a debility, but you have to consider essential dignity, house placement, and various aspects. A planet that is separating versus applying should also be considered.

Put all of those factors together.

Sometimes, it is easier to connect things to reality instead of looking solely at the symbolic elements in a subjective manner.

If you take a planet 1? away from leaving the Sun's beams, say, the Moon. Suppose Cancer rises, in a Secondary progressed chart 1? = 1 month (for the Moon), roughly. Since the Sun probably rules the native's 2nd house, his first month of life may be troubled by money or shortage of food and possessions, besides health issues, depending on the house they are present. As the Moon leaves the beams, the situation improves. Obviously, more degrees would add up in terms of time.

If you consider that as a testimony for life, it may mean that all of his life will have a theme of fear of shortage of money and resources, still, the native manages to escape, improving his situation as time passes. If the planet is heading to combustion, on the other hand, a situation may be escalating to become a critical problem at some point. And so on and so forth.

Night Sky wrote:Under Sun's Beams with an orb of 17 degrees on either side is what is found by Lilly.

My question has to do with whether, you have a planet, for example Saturn, Jupiter or Mars oriental, in the 16th degree away from the Sun.

I'd like to know whether there are any different opinions regarding the orb of Sun's beams because with a scoring of -4 points in Lilly's table of accidental dignities, perhaps it is not truly as bad as that.

I agree with you and consider differently when a planet is going to make its first appearance.

A planet which will do its phase in 7 days is in fact already in its heliacal rising, see for example Paul of Alexandria .

margherita

Night Sky wrote:

Under Sun's Beams with an orb of 17 degrees on either side is what is found by Lilly.

Actually, Lilly didn't always use an orb of 17 degrees for the Sun. He admits himself that he sometimes used a different set of orbs which for the Sun is 15 degrees. As he stated 'I sometimes use the one and sometimes the other as my memory serves me best'. In practice, he tended to favour the list of Al-Biruni.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspectorbs.html

I prefer this standard orb as it coincides with all the Greek and Roman astrologers who considered planets 'under the beams' within 15 degrees of the Sun. The eary astrologers made no distinction between under the beams and 'combust' as you find in later medieval astrology. The basic point is that the planet is invisible to the naked eye. On this basis some astrologers proposed we should only base 'under the beams' on when a planet is literally obscured by the Sun. This would require more detailed astronomical information than a standardised orb of 15 or 17 degrees. The argument here is that since under the beans relates back to visual reality we should dispense with standardised orbs and instead calculate whether a planet has yet emerged from the light of the Sun and heliacally risen.

If you fancy exploring this kind of approach instead of standardised orbs there is some excellent free software called PLSV that will calculate when a planet ienters the Sun's beams or becomes visible again:

http://www.alcyone.de/planetary_lunar_a ... ility.html

Margherita wrote:

A planet which will do its phase in 7 days is in fact already in its heliacal rising, see for example Paul of Alexandria .

That comment will not make much sense to a lot of people unless you expand it more fully to explain what you mean.

Mark

Mark wrote:
http://www.alcyone.de/planetary_lunar_a ... ility.html

Margherita wrote:

A planet which will do its phase in 7 days is in fact already in its heliacal rising, see for example Paul of Alexandria .

That comment will not make much sense to a lot of people unless you expand it more fully to explain what you mean.

Mark

I just meant - I'm hermetic in Italian too (Scorpio signature) that:

1- I don't use fixed orbs for determining if a planet is invisible or not, but I use the real astronomical phenomenon, following Prof. Bezza;

2- In order to determine when a planet is making its heliacal rising I use the software you mentioned (the one recommended inside CieloeTerra) tweaking a little the data for arcus visionis;

3- that a planet which is not yet visible but it will do its phase in 7 days (following Paulus of Alexandria) is already considered in heliacal rising.

Hope I'm more clearer now,

margherita

Margherita wrote:

that a planet which is not yet visible but it will do its phase in 7 days (following Paulus of Alexandria) is already considered in heliacal rising.

Thanks for clarifying your general position. No disrepect to Paulus but that is a very counter-intuitive idea which I have always had a hard time accepting. Still, maybe you could set out the astronomical logic of why Paulus makes this surprising suggestion?

Mark

Mark wrote:. Still, maybe you could set out the astronomical logic of why Paulus makes this surprising suggestion?

Mark

I find Paulus of Alexandria much worthy than Firmicus, to be honest, a must-read book, because it explains a lot of things which Ptolemy forgets to mention

I don''t know exactly why he considers 7 days of tolerance; maybe because the phase is so important and so strong that its influence is not limited to the very day of the phenomenon.

Surely Robert Schmidt who translated the English version- I have Bezza one- can say more.

margherita

My question has to do with whether, you have a planet, for example Saturn, Jupiter or Mars oriental, in the 16th degree away from the Sun.

I'd like to know whether there are any different opinions regarding the orb of Sun's beams because with a scoring of -4 points in Lilly's table of accidental dignities, perhaps it is not truly as bad as that.

I agree that a rigid use of the table is counterproductive. It's generally acknowledged that a planet farther from the Sun is not going to be as powerfully affected as one closer. Therefore, a planet in the 16th degree and separating is not as powerfully influenced as a planet in the 8th or 9th applying close to combustion (assuming we take combustion and being under the beams into consideration). Lilly makes no such distinctions for his scoring. We should.

Secondly the matter of orbs. Fifteen degrees plus or minus is a whole sign. Using these orbs it would be a rare chart that had no aspects to the Sun. Morinus is worse. He gives 18 plus or minus for the Sun for a whopping 36 degree total orb of influence, 12 for the Moon and 13 for Venus. Yet in his delineations he normally refers only to much tighter aspects, and what few times I seem to recall that he referred to wider aspects it was for supporting testimony only.

The question to, me anyway, is not so much, "How wide is the orb (or moiety)," but "How much influence does it have?" Sure we can write or talk about a whole lot more, if we use these wide orbs, but are we getting closer to the truth or filling up space? I think it is better to limit ourselves to really tight orbs and develop what they symbolize rather than go on and on and on about a Sun square Saturn aspect that is separating at 15 degrees, and say far less about Mercury square Jupiter with a 2 degree orb. Better to concentrate on Mercury and Jupiter in that case, and if necessary or even if unnecessary but more usefully, ignore the wide aspects altogether.

Tom

Hello Tom

Tom wrote: The question to, me anyway, is not so much, "How wide is the orb (or moiety)," but "How much influence does it have?" Sure we can write or talk about a whole lot more, if we use these wide orbs, but are we getting closer to the truth or filling up space? I think it is better to limit ourselves to really tight orbs and develop what they symbolize rather than go on and on and on about a Sun square Saturn aspect that is separating at 15 degrees, and say far less about Mercury square Jupiter with a 2 degree orb. Better to concentrate on Mercury and Jupiter in that case, and if necessary or even if unnecessary but more usefully, ignore the wide aspects altogether.

[/color]

but NightSky was talking about heliacal rising or setting, not a common aspect. This is different in my opinion.

In Ptolemy - I don't know in Morin- there is no almost so much important dignity than this. Almost everything depends on its phase to the Sun.

And about the example you did, I don't know. For the way I read a natal chart, every factor has its own significator, so it depends what I'm searching.
For example if I'm evaluating a profession, I believe I would be more concentrated on the aspect with the Sun, even if wider, and so on.

margherita

but NightSky was talking about heliacal rising or setting, not a common aspect. This is different in my opinion.

Night Sky mentioned Lilly's standard orb for the Sun. He didn't explicitly mention heliacal rising or setting in his post but rather planets being 'under the beams' using Lilly's approach. It was you and I that introduced this. The subject inevitablly introduces a discussion of orbs for the Sun. Although these days I tend to favour a visual approach to 'under the beams' rather than standardised orbs myself. I agree though we should restrict the subject to the Sun rather than a general discussion of planetary orbs.

Mark

but NightSky was talking about heliacal rising or setting, not a common aspect. This is different in my opinion.

I agree with you that it is different, but I was responding to the original post and I don't see anything referring to heliacal rising or setting. I was referring to the question about the Sun's beams and the question regarding orbs.

Tom