thanks for this too mark. i appreciate your answer to my question..

Mark wrote:James_M wrote:

back to my question - is this the way either of you two ( moderators) happen to see it? you have my curiousity as to whether this is your own personal experience in astrology.

I work a lot with sect. I cant claim decades of experience in this area. However, I notice how useful it is pinpointing issues in charts. For example the malefic out of sect.

Mark

Mark already answered this, so there's little for me to add. Every single quotation you give upholds the principle of sect: the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are better (the benefic more benefic, the malefic less malefic) in a diurnal nativity and worse in a nocturnal nativity; the Moon, Venus and Mars, the reverse. If you can find any instances where the Moon, Venus or Mars is portrayed as giving worse results in a nocturnal nativity (except when the reason is that they are in a diurnal planet's domicile or aspected by a diurnal planet), that would be worth discussing.

James_M wrote:

i have read fm and rhetorius. that doesn't mean i know them inside out. i seem to recall being challenged in a similar conversation about primary directions with martin a very short time ago along the same lines - 'did you read my book?' and etc etc.. we all process information differently.

I really wasn't seeking to challenge you James. As you started the thread I simply addressed you in the first person. However, the point I was making was really addressed to anyone reading the thread.

I wasn't picking you up for a supposed failure to keep up with key reading material! I was simply drawing everyones attention to the fact that in regards sect and sect alone Abu 'Ali Al-Khayyat seems very reminiscent of late hellenistic authors like Firmicus and Rhetorius.

One of the interesting things about traditional astrology is noting the connections between sources. For example, finding ideas that seem to stem back to Dorotheus, Valens or Ptolemy. Abu 'Ali Al-Khayyat stands as part of that astrological tradition at an interesting period in the transition between Hellenistic and Arabic astrology.

Mark

Martin Gansten wrote:Mark already answered this, so there's little for me to add. Every single quotation you give upholds the principle of sect: the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are better (the benefic more benefic, the malefic less malefic) in a diurnal nativity and worse in a nocturnal nativity; the Moon, Venus and Mars, the reverse. If you can find any instances where the Moon, Venus or Mars is portrayed as giving worse results in a nocturnal nativity (except when the reason is that they are in a diurnal planet's domicile or aspected by a diurnal planet), that would be worth discussing.

chapter 45

"the moon in a domicile of saturn indicates sicknesses from an excess of wind. bad things will be said about him. but if it is diminished in light, it signifies an infirmity marked by a cough and cold, and pains in teh kidneys, especially if it is a nocturnal chart.. but if it is diurnal, anything of these maladies (that develop) will be mitigated."

thanks mark.

communicating via the internet can be problematic and maybe i am too sensitive from a few other recent conversations..

that is what is said about ali 'abu - his material is in the same flavour as fm and rhetorius, but i get something different from it. i do note how central the use of triplicities and sect are, but as i said in my first post i sense a bias towards diurnal over nocturnal charts. perhaps this has to do with the ''male''- diurnal planets having more significance for astrologers then the 'female'-nocturnal planets. i am coming to this conclusion.. parts of this book were missing. maybe if i had read the missing parts i would view it differently. i pointed out to Ile in another thread regarding benjamin dyke how the lot of the father was much earlier in the book then the lot of the mother.. meanwhile we have the house of the father, or fathers, but no house of the mother, or mothers. even in this book there is a long overview on brothers, with sisters not getting any kind of similar overview.. it is like men count and women don't which is similar to my view of this books overview on diurnal verses nocturnal..

Mark wrote:James_M wrote:

i have read fm and rhetorius. that doesn't mean i know them inside out. i seem to recall being challenged in a similar conversation about primary directions with martin a very short time ago along the same lines - 'did you read my book?' and etc etc.. we all process information differently.

I really wasn't seeking to challenge you James. As you started the thread I simply addressed you in the first person. However, the point I was making was really addressed to anyone reading the thread.

I wasn't picking you up for a supposed failure to keep up with key reading material! I was simply drawing everyones attention to the fact that in regards sect and sect alone Abu 'Ali Al-Khayyat seems very reminiscent of late hellenistic authors like Firmicus and Rhetorius.

One of the interesting things about traditional astrology is noting the connections between sources. For example, finding ideas that seem to stem back to Dorotheus, Valens or Ptolemy. Abu 'Ali Al-Khayyat stands as part of that astrological tradition at an interesting period in the transition between Hellenistic and Arabic astrology.

Mark

james_m wrote:

Martin Gansten wrote:Mark already answered this, so there's little for me to add. Every single quotation you give upholds the principle of sect: the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are better (the benefic more benefic, the malefic less malefic) in a diurnal nativity and worse in a nocturnal nativity; the Moon, Venus and Mars, the reverse. If you can find any instances where the Moon, Venus or Mars is portrayed as giving worse results in a nocturnal nativity (except when the reason is that they are in a diurnal planet's domicile or aspected by a diurnal planet), that would be worth discussing.

chapter 45

"the moon in a domicile of saturn indicates sicknesses from an excess of wind. bad things will be said about him. but if it is diminished in light, it signifies an infirmity marked by a cough and cold, and pains in teh kidneys, especially if it is a nocturnal chart.. but if it is diurnal, anything of these maladies (that develop) will be mitigated."

Please see the phrase in bold above. Saturn afflicts less by day.

thanks martin,
i see how you are interpreting this now.. not only does it hinge on what sect the planet is, or whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal, but on the nature of the sign that the planet is in - capricorn - doesn't matter that it is a nocturnal element - earth - or that it is a nocturnal chart - it all hinges on the rulership of the sign and whether that sign is ruled by a diurnal or nocturnal planet.. this is a new interpretation on sect i haven't read about before.

as i have said already the book is limited in it's examples on the nocturnal planets and with the diurnal planets never goes into a negative spin based on them being in the signs of 'nocturnal' planets. to give one example

chapter 40 page 64

"and if jupiter appears in the domicile of the moon in diurnal nativities, and especially if it is in an angle or a succedent, he will be fortunate and possessed of much wealth and great authority, connected with kings and nobles.. but if the nativity is nocturnal, he will be a leading figure in law, a person of good talent in his arts, and famous because of these.."

there doesn't seem to be any lessening of jupiters position due it being nocturnal, or in the sign of a nocturnal planet here. perhaps one would like to explain this is due something else like jupiters exaltation perhaps, but i see no downside to jupiters position regardless of day or night, or whether it is in a diurnal or nocturnal domicile.. the same can't be said for the nocturnal planets in these descriptions. it is unfortunate the book doesn't give near as much examples with the nocturnal as the diurnal planets which i continue to believe pushes a particular bias that favours the diurnal over the nocturnal planets..

Martin Gansten wrote:

james_m wrote:

Martin Gansten wrote:Mark already answered this, so there's little for me to add. Every single quotation you give upholds the principle of sect: the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are better (the benefic more benefic, the malefic less malefic) in a diurnal nativity and worse in a nocturnal nativity; the Moon, Venus and Mars, the reverse. If you can find any instances where the Moon, Venus or Mars is portrayed as giving worse results in a nocturnal nativity (except when the reason is that they are in a diurnal planet's domicile or aspected by a diurnal planet), that would be worth discussing.

chapter 45

"the moon in a domicile of saturn indicates sicknesses from an excess of wind. bad things will be said about him. but if it is diminished in light, it signifies an infirmity marked by a cough and cold, and pains in the kidneys, especially if it is a nocturnal chart.. but if it is diurnal, anything of these maladies (that develop) will be mitigated."

Please see the phrase in bold above. Saturn afflicts less by day.

i suppose one could take this to mean that a planet like mars in a nocturnal chart but in the sign of capricorn would not be favoured so well either as it is in the sign of a diurnally ruled domicile, even if the element conforms with the triplicity of the nocturnal planets.. this to me would be putting a heavier emphasis on the rulership of the planet and whether it is ruled by a diurnal or nocturnal planet, then on the element of the sign.. this is especially interesting in that it seems to over ride the idea of hayz - or having a planet lined up correctly by sect on all levels one of which is the element of the sign as well.

james_m wrote:i see how you are interpreting this now.. [...] this is a new interpretation on sect i haven't read about before.

Abu 'Ali seems quite influenced by Dorotheus, who also treats location in a planet's domicile as tantamount to a conjunction with the planet.

there doesn't seem to be any lessening of jupiters position due it being nocturnal, or in the sign of a nocturnal planet here. perhaps one would like to explain this is due something else like jupiters exaltation perhaps, but i see no downside to jupiters position regardless of day or night, or whether it is in a diurnal or nocturnal domicile..

Good point about the Moon's domicile being Jupiter's exaltation; that helps, of course. But I would say that the nocturnal description is actually somewhat better, which would be due to the Moon giving better results by night. The most striking sect differences, however, generally occur in the descriptions of the malefics (as Robert Hand has pointed out).

Martin Gansten wrote: But I would say that the nocturnal description is actually somewhat better, which would be due to the Moon giving better results by night. The most striking sect differences, however, generally occur in the descriptions of the malefics (as Robert Hand has pointed out).

thanks for sharing martin.
i see your reasoning, but it doesn't apply in my earlier example here which makes me question whether there is some other underlying position that is biased a particular way in favour of diurnal planets over nocturnal ones.

james_m wrote:

chapter 45

"the moon in a domicile of saturn indicates sicknesses from an excess of wind. bad things will be said about him. but if it is diminished in light, it signifies an infirmity marked by a cough and cold, and pains in the kidneys, especially if it is a nocturnal chart.. but if it is diurnal, anything of these maladies (that develop) will be mitigated."

james_m wrote:i see your reasoning, but it doesn't apply in my earlier example here which makes me question whether there is some other underlying position that is biased a particular way in favour of diurnal planets over nocturnal ones.

I take it you mean the example you just quoted again. Let's look at it, then:

james_m wrote:

chapter 45

"the moon in a domicile of saturn indicates sicknesses from an excess of wind. bad things will be said about him. but if it is diminished in light, it signifies an infirmity marked by a cough and cold, and pains in the kidneys, especially if it is a nocturnal chart.. but if it is diurnal, anything of these maladies (that develop) will be mitigated."

The Moon in a domicile of Saturn is afflicted because Saturn is a malefic and of the opposite sect (the Moon is nocturnal, Saturn diurnal). So Saturn afflicts the Moon according to its nature (excess of wind, ill repute). If the Moon is waning, the affliction is intensified, because the waning Moon is even more nocturnal, whereas the waxing Moon is slightly more diurnal. Therefore it is less evil for a waning Moon to be aspected by Mars and for a waxing Moon to be aspected by Saturn; again, this is common sect lore. If the nativity is nocturnal, Saturn's tendency to afflict is similarly intensified, because it is then contrary to the sect of the chart as a whole; but if the nativity is diurnal, Saturn becomes less malefic.

It really is all about sect.

Hi James,

The Moon, if in a domicile of Saturn, is going to act on what is provided by Saturn, which are generally "bad", like personal dishonor, or what looks like intestinal gas and, well, crap. Also, Saturn gives signs for the bronchials.

If the chart gives favor to the nocturnal sect, Kronos is out of favor by being in the contrary sect, so its quality of hosting the Moon will be poor to begin with, and combined the Moon's greater ability to act, in general, in nocturnal charts makes the signs its gives less favorable to the native. This is compounded by the waning Moon, which can be said to be more malefic, perhaps it's better to say less generous in its conduct.

With a diurnal chart, however, Saturn is in a better position to be a good host, generally, and thus the favorability of what it gives to the Moon is of a better class, and it is handed over in a more courteous way. So this, coupled with the Moon's impaired capacity to act aggressively on what it is provided with, makes the signs given by a Moon positioned so is less unfavorable to the native.

james_m wrote: thanks for sharing martin.
i see your reasoning, but it doesn't apply in my earlier example here which makes me question whether there is some other underlying position that is biased a particular way in favour of diurnal planets over nocturnal ones.

chapter 45

"the moon in a domicile of saturn indicates sicknesses from an excess of wind. bad things will be said about him. but if it is diminished in light, it signifies an infirmity marked by a cough and cold, and pains in the kidneys, especially if it is a nocturnal chart.. but if it is diurnal, anything of these maladies (that develop) will be mitigated."