astrojin,

one other comment you've made seems to suggest the solar return chart is the main filter when applying the different methods you've listed below. this would appear to place the solar return at the top of the chain of considerations with all other predictive techniques of lesser importance. i am curious to know your thoughts on this. i wonder if this is a development of arab astrologers that didn't exist previously. i don't know the starting point for the use of solar return charts but i believe it is an arabic invention if i am not mistaken.

thanks! james

astrojin wrote: The medieval arab astrologers seemed to favour Firdaria (in the planet to planet advancing method), profection of the ascendant sign (in the sign to sign advancing method) and equatorial degree method i.e. primary direction (in degree to degree advancing method). They took the Firdaria planet of the year in question, the salkhudhah (the lord of the year) and the jharbhaktar and they looked at their conditions in the renewed chart (i.e. the solar return chart). So, they took each method of the above three advancing methods and marry them with the annual solar return chart. We could say that they were trying to find the workings of all of the three different advancing methods in the solar return chart.

Hello again,

james_m:

your posts are always a joy to read! i like how you've created a cohesive system for these traditional predictive techniques that seem to be the focus of so many today who want to practice traditional astrology.

Thank you!

james_m:

i would like to ask you about a few ideas you've mentioned here.. to say the reason solar arcs are popular is becuase they are easy to use would be like saying traditional astrology is easy to use because the ''modern'' software is easy to use.. i just don't think it is based on that so much as it is based on the viewpoint of the astrologers using any of these techniques - new or old - that they have merit. perhaps i misunderstood you here and if so please elaborate - thanks!

I am sorry I didn?t make myself clear on the solar arc technique ?being easy?. To do a solar arc the ?proper way? is definitely not easy. However, when a new student is exposed to the technique, they are usually taught the shortcut method where we just move the sun (and all the planets in the natal chart) the number of degrees where one degree is equivalent to one year (which is actually a tertiary progression). Some (like Noel Tyle) would also apply a certain correction factor that is easy to remember (correction factor that depends on the month one is born). The students are then instructed to look to the conjunctions (including other aspects) of the advanced planets to the natal planets (and house cusps, and?). This is the common technique (though as I mentioned before, it is not the ?correct? procedure but is famous among newbies). Of course the correct procedure is to calculate the degrees that progressed sun has advanced?

james_m:

i see no fundamental difference between the arbitrary methods of either profections - sign per year - and solar arc - 1 approx zodiac degree per year.. they are both symbolic methods of making a prediction on the future that have a degree of abstraction to them that i think are very similar..

Indeed, there is no difference between profection and solar arc when we look in terms of the scaling method (one degree or one sign to a year) but see below.

james_m:

.. you mention all these methods including profections having a connection to the diurnal motion directly or indirectly.. i don't see that.. can you explain? how do they have some type of connection to the diurnal motion while the solar arc directions don't?

If we fix one finger on the degree of the ascendant and let the chart turn according to diurnal motion, the next degree rising would be the next degree in zodiacal order. This gives rise to the advancing from degree to degree. If we fix one finger on the sign of the ascendant and let the chart turn according to diurnal motion, the next sign rising would be the next sign in zodiacal order. This gives rise to the advancing from sign to sign. If we fix one finger on the degree of the ascendant and let the chart turn according to diurnal motion, the first planet rising would be the first planet ruling the native and the next planet would be the second planet that rules the native (and so on and so forth). This gives rise to the advancing from planet to planet according to the decennials. (This is one of the reasons that I do not use Firdaria! The Firdaria method does not resonate to me theoretically as well as empirically).

Solar arc direction (including secondary progression) uses the motion of the ?other? or planetary motions along the zodiac (as opposed to the above which uses the motion of the ?same? or diurnal motion).
The Hellenistic astrologers did not use Firdaria (this seemed to have originated from the Persians) but they definitely used profection with solar return (see below on the reference from Valens). It is logical to use profection (which has a cycle of a year) with solar return whose cycle is also a year. The combination of Firdaria, profection and also direction with solar return seems to be the arab innovations (though I am not sure about this!).

james_m:

one other comment you've made seems to suggest the solar return chart is the main filter when applying the different methods you've listed below. this would appear to place the solar return at the top of the chain of considerations with all other predictive techniques of lesser importance. i am curious to know your thoughts on this. i wonder if this is a development of arab astrologers that didn't exist previously. i don't know the starting point for the use of solar return charts but i believe it is an arabic invention if i am not mistaken.

From Valens? Anthology Book IV, Chapter 11 (PP29 ? 30, Schmidt?s translation):
Though the divisions are diverse, if one pays attention he will not go wrong. For when the same handings over are signified in a twelve year period, they will not [always] possess the same operation of the effects, but different. Whenever we will find a handing over after one or more [years] in a certain cycle, we will examined the renewed nativity for that year?

Equivalent translation from Riley (/168P/ Book IV Chapter 11, Pg 79):
The same transmissions are indicated every 12 years. They will, however, not have the same causative influence, but different. Wherever we find a transmission in one cycle, (whether from one or from many), we examine the horoscope recast for that year, ?

This is the reference where Valens instructs the astrologer to marry the profection system with the renewed nativity (which is the solar return).

We could say that the solar return is the door by which the indications promised in the natal chart are to be manifested.

Good morning,

As for example Dr. med. Rumen Kolev has demonstrated in his astrological books, one can consider the various methods discussed in this thread as time fractals. 4 minutes (average) -> 1 degree; 24 minutes (average) -> 1/60th, 1 confine; 40 minutes -> 1/36th, 1 decan; 120 minutes (average) -> 1/12th, 1 sign, etc. Such are 'natural' divisions used to seek correspondences amongst celestial and terrestrial events. 360 is quite close to the mean between a solar and a lunar year. Obviously, the day is an equatorial phenomenon and thus measured in right ascension and declination. The resulting values may be translated into ecliptic longitude and latitude.

With the 'discovery' and applications of 'true solar arcs' measured in ecliptic longitude to all points, Mr Noel Tyl in his book Solar Arcs - Astrology's Most Successful Predictive System in superlative language, supported by anecdotal evidence, extolled the virtues of this method, employed for example in the German Hamburg and Aalen Schools since the early 20th century.

Concerning astrological works written up to and including the Renaissance (ex. gr. Placido di Titi), one might do well to keep in mind that calculations were, compared to today's accuracies, off by an average of 3 degrees of ecliptic arc, 6 for Mercury. This means that only beginning with decans were placements more likely than not correct, with confines as likely correct as incorrect (incorrect for Mercury) and with still smaller subdivisions like dodecatemoria more likely false. Within 3 degrees of sign or constellations borders the values reported in old books were as likely correct as not. Reports of 'partile' conjunctions or aspects are more likely incorrect.

Best regards,

lihin

astrojin,

thanks for trying to enlighten me! i found the quotes from valens on the 'renewed nativity' which is understood to be 'solar return' quite fascinating. my impression is they are quite central to your own consideration of the other predictive techniques you follow based on your final comment that i have included at the bottom.

i don't know that i was familiar with the idea of decennials, but you've explained it well here. i can see one being more inclined to use decennials then the firdaria.. it is an interesting topic. on the one hand i see the wisdom in giving the beginning of life to the moon and the final part to saturn for example. i just don't understand why one would marry this symbolic connection to a persons life in an important predictive manner with arbitrary years given to each.. doesn't make sense to me, but i would like it if someone can explain how it makes good logic to them.

i am curious to know if you use bound/term lords in any context? i am trying to understand the concept of distribution better which hinges on the bound rulers while being partnered with any planet making a direct aspect to the degree of whatever one is directing (primary directions).. i can see the sense in the relevance of any planet making an aspect to a particular degree.. if one directs the ascendant for example to a degree that happens to include a planet/poiint that is in aspect to the degree of the directed ascendant, it will make an obvious connection- an aspect in modern terms.. however, this concept of the ruler of the bound being the primary distributor requires one accept the concept of bounds or terms as defined by the astrologers of old.. the different systems for this - egyptian, chaldean and etc. must present a nagging problem for those who use them! if you have any thoughts on the use of bound lords, i'd be curious.

i fail to see any real difference between directing the chart one sign per year - profection, and one degree per year - tertiary progression that is similar, but not the same as a solar arc direction. whether it is one degree or one sign per year - the motion is in the same direction.. one can do converse directions too which throw a different light on the relevance of the diurnal motion as well. i know that converse primary directions have been in use for some time and are considered relevant by some of the older astrologers.

thanks for the conversation,
james

astrojin wrote:If we fix one finger on the degree of the ascendant and let the chart turn according to diurnal motion, the first planet rising would be the first planet ruling the native and the next planet would be the second planet that rules the native (and so on and so forth). This gives rise to the advancing from planet to planet according to the decennials. (This is one of the reasons that I do not use Firdaria! The Firdaria method does not resonate to me theoretically as well as empirically).

astrojin wrote:Solar arc direction (including secondary progression) uses the motion of the ?other? or planetary motions along the zodiac (as opposed to the above which uses the motion of the ?same? or diurnal motion).

astrojin wrote: This is the reference where Valens instructs the astrologer to marry the profection system with the renewed nativity (which is the solar return).

We could say that the solar return is the door by which the indications promised in the natal chart are to be manifested.