Konrad wrote:I find the different viewpoints interesting. Martin, you said "located on the appropriate side". There is a different form of spear-bearing which requires the planet to be occidental of the Sun to guard him:

Konrad

I do not know where you get the occidental of the sun from. Is it from your quote? It says "the planet bodyguarding for the Sun aspects the degree rising before the Sun" - the degree rising means the ascendant. So the bodyguarding planet of the sun, must be further in zodiacal degrees than the sun. Therefore that planet must be ORIENTAL of the sun. Not occidental.

He then goes onto explain that he interprets "striking with a ray" as that the bodyguard has to be ahead of the luminary in the order of the signs. Obviously this would mean that Jupiter and Saturn would have to be occidental of the Sun to bodyguard for him.

Was this your conclusion or Ben Dykes? Does he say "Obviously this would mean that Jupiter and Saturn would have to be occidental of the Sun to bodyguard for him"?

Best book about Doryphorie

http://books.google.at/books?id=XFX2VJH ... Doryphorie

Wolfgang

Paul: Edited post to fix the link, which was breaking the site's width

Hi Paul,

yeah, reading it again you are right in one sense, I think. I am getting confused between this example and the examples Ben Dykes gives in his lecture on Eminence. From his slides, Dykes is drawing from Antiochus but I don't have the translation from Schmidt to check that.

The degree rising means literally the degree which rises before the Sun, so the degree the Sun is apparently moving towards by Dirunal motion, therefore it would have be less in degrees than the Sun. I think what is confusing me here is the chart example Dykes gives (in ITA) which shows Cancer rising with the Sun in Aries being guarded by Jupiter in Cancer in less degrees than the Sun with an arrow motioning from Jupiter to the degrees the Sun is moving towards by Dirunal motion. I would love to know why this example is listed there if it isn't the right example chart? Dykes says in his commentary the guard must be in the sign "following it [the light]". I just assumed that "following" meant by dirunal motion, especially when he refers us to his example charts which are structured as I outlined above, but Masha'allah's own words signify the contrary. I'm thoroughly confused now. I will have to listen to that lecture again.

martin,

thanks for the excellent short summary on doryphory. you know i like to ask questions, so don't feel obliged to answer them all! how would you, or anyone else sort out a chart where doryphory doesn't seem to apply very well, but with a person of high honours and status? i refer you to the queen of englands chart. this will look more favouable in sidereal, but overall i can't see how doryphory can be applied very well here.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Eli ... of_England

konrad,

i read it the way paul reads it too (occidental to the moon and oriental to the sun), although when planets act as doryphory to a planet out of sect it doesn't seem to matter.. at least that is how i read the out of sect examples given from masha'allah and antiochus..

wolfgang,

ben dykes mentions in passing(back notes to ITA and listed in the bibliography to ITA as i recall) that he might actually translate that book in the future.. perhaps there are some other translators around too? lol.. i would like to read that book, at any rate.

Konrad wrote: From his slides, Dykes is drawing from Antiochus but I don't have the translation from Schmidt to check that.

Right, but what is Ben Dykes demonstrating in his slides. Is it an occidental planet to the Sun acting as doryphory?

The degree rising means literally the degree which rises before the Sun, so the degree the Sun is apparently moving towards by Dirunal motion, therefore it would have be less in degrees than the Sun.

I'm assuming you mean by Primary motion? As in, that a planet moves from the IC to the Ascendant and then to the MC, for example?
Well what degree might the 'degree which rises' be in that case? Primary motion describes the direction.

The degree which rises is quite literally the degree rising on the ascendant, in other words just the ascendant degree. In order for a planet to move by primary motion to the ascendant before the Sun, the planet must be less in degrees by SECONDARY motion, or, along the zodiac.
In other words let's imagine that 0 Scorpio Rises and we have a planet at 10 Scorpio and another at 20 Scorpio. Clearly the planet at 10 Scorpio will be brought to the ascendant before the one at 20 degrees. Therefore we can see that the planet in less degrees is the one which will rise first - because secondary motion, or zodiacal motion if you prefer, is contrary in direction to the primary motion which carries planets from one angle to another.

Does this make more sense? In practical terms then being earlier in degree in this sense would mean to be oriental.

I think what is confusing me here is the chart example Dykes gives (in ITA) which shows Cancer rising with the Sun in Aries being guarded by Jupiter in Cancer in less degrees than the Sun with an arrow motioning from Jupiter to the degrees the Sun is moving towards by Dirunal motion.

Yeah that seems a bit confusing to me too. Clearly at the time of day that Dykes chose, Jupiter hits the Ascendant before the Sun, but that is only because he chose a time after the Sun had already hit it. I would not quite see that this fits with the version of doryphory I use (same as listed by the quote you provided earlier).

However there are other variants. One such variant merely requires that the planet be of the same sect and have angularity - with the distinction of whether it is oriental or occidental being of no importance. It may be important that Jupiter has dignity in the ascendant as well. I suspect Ben may be commenting on these other forms of doryphory but I think it might be good to go back over the lecture notes/slides and see what his comments are and update us here too if you can.

I hope Ben Dykes doesn't mind me posting this, if does ever see it and he does mind, I will take it away.

This is slide I am talking about and, I believe, the version he uses later in his delineations of Michael Jackson and Bill Gates during the lecture:

Right, but what is Ben Dykes demonstrating in his slides. Is it an occidental planet to the Sun acting as doryphory?

Yes, see above. Venus guarding the Sun, clearly in an earlier degree. Also this is a screen-cap from ITA and the chart accompanying the Masha'allah quote above:
It has nothing to do with the ASC, this is just a prime example of the technique; both planets are angular and exalted, while the guard is in-sect.

I'm assuming you mean by Primary motion? As in, that a planet moves from the IC to the Ascendant and then to the MC, for example?
Well what degree might the 'degree which rises' be in that case? Primary motion describes the direction.

It is just an (apparently) easier way of saying that the planet has to be in less degrees than the Sun. The point is the Sun has to be moving towards the aspect via Dirunal motion, so that the ray itself is oriental and, according to some, "striking with a ray" is done when the striker is ahead in the order of signs, or occidental of the Sun when he is being struck.

The degree which rises is quite literally the degree rising on the ascendant, in other words just the ascendant degree.

If you read the quote again, it says "the degree rising before the Sun", not "the degree rising" or "the degree which rises". These are two different things and the "degree rising before the Sun" talks of the degree the Sun was in the previous day. But all this is inconsequential as I have already admitted I confused the two techniques. The Masha'allah quote shows Saturn being oriental, while the example chart shows Jupiter being occidental but striking with a ray, the degree before the Sun.

Yeah that seems a bit confusing to me too. Clearly at the time of day that Dykes chose, Jupiter hits the Ascendant before the Sun, but that is only because he chose a time after the Sun had already hit it. I would not quite see that this fits with the version of doryphory I use (same as listed by the quote you provided earlier).

It isn't about hitting the ASC though, it is about striking with a ray some point (either the Sun or the whatever degree you interpret it to be).

I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone here. I plan to listen to the lecture again, but at 3 hours long that isn't going to happen this weekend. I will stuff my tail firmly between my legs and apologise profusely to those I have misrepresented if I am indeed wrong in my assertions.

Oh wait, I understand now Konrad. Sorry I was getting confused myself when I read back over what you meant. Now I see the diagrams I understand what Ben means.

So other forms of doryphory include when the luminary is in its own dignity and be angular. The spear bearer must be also in its own dignity. The spear bearer must be in aspect to the luminary, and must cast its aspect to a degree which rises before the sun (or after the moon).

This is what is happening with the sun and venus. Venus is the spearbearer, it is in its own dignity, I assume it is casting an aspect to a degree which rises before the luminary - in practical terms this means that the place that is being aspected rises before the sun, or, to put it another way, the place that is being aspected (by degree) is oriental of the sun (occidental of the moon). The luminary is in its own domicile and is angular.

It would be better were the spear bearer of the same sect, but it is not necessary.

Yes, exactly. It is the degree which is being aspected, not the light itself. I think the conditions given are ideal, but can be used when not as powerful.

Theoretically I prefer this system but I usually use both together. If anyone has any thoughts on it, I would appreciate hearing them.

james_m wrote:how would you, or anyone else sort out a chart where doryphory doesn't seem to apply very well, but with a person of high honours and status? i refer you to the queen of englands chart. this will look more favouable in sidereal, but overall i can't see how doryphory can be applied very well here.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Eli ... of_England

Astrology needs to be used in context. For instance, a native with below-average indications of wealth but born in a rich country may be considerably better off, in absolute terms, than a native with above-average indications born in a poor country, and so on. Similarly, if you are the Queen of England, honours and status may be taken for granted -- you don't have to be a particularly lucky or hard-working Queen to get them.

Of course, if the Queen's father had lived longer, she would not have enjoyed such a long reign; and if her uncle hadn't abdicated, she might not have succeeded to the throne at all. But once those events had taken place, the succession with all that it entailed (whether welcome or not) was a given. So perhaps we had better ask what in the Queen's chart signifies her father's rise to the throne and his (relatively) early demise, neither of which was necessarily a desirable event to the Princess. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, for a monarch, Elizabeth II has had a fairly difficult life in many respects, a fact probably related to a rather afflicted Saturn on the midheaven.

Martin Gansten wrote:

james_m wrote:how would you, or anyone else sort out a chart where doryphory doesn't seem to apply very well, but with a person of high honours and status? i refer you to the queen of englands chart. this will look more favouable in sidereal, but overall i can't see how doryphory can be applied very well here.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Eli ... of_England

Astrology needs to be used in context. For instance, a native with below-average indications of wealth but born in a rich country may be considerably better off, in absolute terms, than a native with above-average indications born in a poor country, and so on. Similarly, if you are the Queen of England, honours and status may be taken for granted -- you don't have to be a particularly lucky or hard-working Queen to get them.

Of course, if the Queen's father had lived longer, she would not have enjoyed such a long reign; and if her uncle hadn't abdicated, she might not have succeeded to the throne at all. But once those events had taken place, the succession with all that it entailed (whether welcome or not) was a given. So perhaps we had better ask what in the Queen's chart signifies her father's rise to the throne and his (relatively) early demise, neither of which was necessarily a desirable event to the Princess. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, for a monarch, Elizabeth II has had a fairly difficult life in many respects, a fact probably related to a rather afflicted Saturn on the midheaven.

Martin, that brings me to a point which I think you are making but isn't it explicitly suggested to look to the native's family and circumstances at the time of their birth before delineating Rank of Fame and wealth and things like this? Looking to Elizabeth's chart, she has an exalted, angular Mars attending the Moon also angular and in her own domicile (at least in the Bodyguarding I was mentioning) and this suggests some prominence within the context of her beginning social class and that of her family's. She is, in fact, the head of that family. It sorta makes sense.

martin and konrad,

martin - i agree with you the astro needs to be used in context.. no doubt she has had a hard life, which probably has a lot to do with her position.. i have always thought people who live in the public eye are much worse off, but this is a subjective viewpoint with my moon in scorpio and lower hemisphere emphasis talking, lol.. i don't think we can safely know what another persons life is like - ""walk a mile in my shoes"".. my take of the buddha's philosophy - it is a struggle no matter who you are or how much, fame, money or eminence you have.. all of that is taken away at the end of the day.. for me personally, integrity is about the only trait that has real value and that can come from a person living on the street right up to the queen or anyone.. it is not based on any of these worldly considerations..

konrad - something you might not be stating but the 4th house -foundation of the chart, connected to our family of origin, would be an important consideration of the larger picture.. (once again) queen elizabeths chart looks slightly more favourable in sidereal, but just using whole sign houses off lahiri - i am getting mars-moon opp in the 2nd/8th, as opposed to 1st/7th houses.. mars and venus are not occidental to the moon so i am not sure if they can operate as 'spear bearers' either.. perhaps someone can offer guidance on that viewpoint..

James, see my post above. The bodyguarding I am talking of doesn't require it to be occidental, only that it is ahead in the order of signs and aspecting the degree which rises after the Moon.