james_m wrote:i want to take up something you mentioned about the importance of the solar return chart to indian astrology as opposed to the traditional western tradition which you seemed to suggest emphasized profections more.. would you like to comment on this more, or is their anything to add to that?

Medieval Arabic-language astrology (which was already an eclectic tradition incorporating Persian, Greek and Indian elements, among others) was transmitted both to westwards into Europe and eastwards into India during the early centuries of the second millennium CE. This tradition included annual revolutions, which were not part of pre-Islamic Indian astrology. The two systems remain separate in India today, though some practise both.

It's not that the Indians necessarily emphasize profections less; they just have a more complex method of finding the final ruler of the year (which they say should aspect the ascendant in the revolution). But the ruler of the profected ascendant is always considered an important planet.

Konrad wrote:

james_m wrote:konrad - were you already familiar with the quote from benjamin dykes book, or was that covering old ground? the example in the bezza link didn't opt for moon as lord of the profection year with cancer in the ascendant, but saturn instead.. according to the quote i gave, it made more sense.. no need to respond.. my time quoting dykes book is something someone will appreciate

I'm not sure I understand the issue. Valens profects everything and looks to see what hands over to what, with importance being given to where the the Sun, Moon and ASC hand over to. The reason Bezza mentions the nocturnal planets in his article is because they are the planets handing over to occupied signs in that year, not because it is a nocturnal chart.

Valens does seem to make a point that when planets hand over to other planets that they are of special importance for the year. For instance, if it is a 3rd house profection year, all planets that hand over to a planet 2 signs ahead he says are "active for the year" and it seems that he thinks that other handing's over are secondary.

He has a few weird ideas such as if it's a 1st house profection year, that you should skip handing over to itself and hand over to the 2nd from that. At first thought, it makes it appear that one would have a 2nd house profection 2 years in a row, but my guess is that what is really happening is that the planet skips itself in such an instance and prepares for what is next. This might be because he thinks a planet handing over to itself doesn't have the same level of importance; not that it doesn't really happen at all. The context seems to be a way of finding the most important profections and how to rank them. I think in terms of secondary considerations one looks at the place but that Valens would probably have thought it less "chrematistikos"...

He also says that a planet handing over to itself is always bad... which suggests that he does think planets hand over to themselves. My guess is that he might be hinting toward some sort of timing consideration as he says that the order of timelordships is important, that they prepare the way ahead of time for both good and bad.

Sometimes these don't always show up in the examples he uses and there are times when it seems that he breaks his own rules. Perhaps a careful reading of the examples will show which rules are most important.

konrad, i am not as familiar with valens as i am with abu mashar. i actually went and read the introduction of persian nativities 3 again. it is about 52 pages and takes up about 1/4 of the book. dykes explains that abu mashar has got some ideas that are his own and different. i have used this as a reference for what i know about a traditional read on solar returns and profections. i have read the online riley valens material, but wasn't focused on learning profections, or time lords so much as just getting a broad brush view on valens. if these different astrologers have a different view on how one arrives at the profection lord, it wouldn't surprise me. according to abu mashar the lights can't be used as profection lords when the ascendant lands in cancer or leo. perhaps that is different from valens viewpoint, i don't know.

curtis seems to suggest valens is not consistent.. ben dykes gives a bit of this flavour too about abu mashar by saying he is doing things differently from others. that is how i am reading things.

martin, thanks for the quick overview on your perspective of using the solar returns and profections and there importance among astrologers in india in general.

what does valens say about solar returns? i seem to recall astrojin saying that valens does mention them and their importance. can anyone comment?

at this point i am more drawn to solar returns then profections. perhaps this is due the fact that i don't understand the process as well. i insight i got from reading the different ben dykes books is the importance of the distributor which is essentially another type of time lord. this goes with an emphasis on primary directions where the terms or bounds of an important point or planet being directed is essentially expressed thru the bound lord - another time lord concept as i understand it. what i recall picking up in that literature is that any planet directly aspecting a bound acts as a 2nd type of time lord to the bound lord. what i get from all of this is that their are potentially a number of different time lords, depending on how much of the data in the primary directions are considered important. add to this the lord of the profection and the lord of the solar return ascendant and one has a lot of time lords to choose from that are supposed to colour the benefic or malefic nature of any event that might come out of all this.

maybe i am complicating it for myself. i still haven't settled on an approach to primary directions. my studies haven't got to the point where i have confidence in any particular set of options for the primary directions. solar returns on the other hand seem like a no brainer in so far as i believe they offer a lot of insight into events of relevance.. the verdict is still out on profections for me.. they remind me a lot of the artificial basis for solar arc directions and secondary progressions. until i reach a point in my studies where i am seeing results in the data i study, i am mostly relying on solar returns and transits. i like what dykes shares in the introduction to persian nativities book 3 in regards to the role of transits for both abu mashar and mashallah.. while transit info tends to get lumped in with a modern approach to astrology and mostly downplayed by some of the traditionalists i read, it seems to have an important role to play in terms of timing as well, if one knows what to watch.

to go back to a point where i felt a degree of sensitivity about - i can't take the info bonatti was sharing in regards to mundane astrology as an insight into finding the ruler of the profection, i am still not convinced this is true. it would seem to me that a certain means of finding the ruler of any chart is similar.. my question from a few days ago about what happens when a planet is in the same degree as the profected ascendant which could also extend to the solar return or the degree of the primary directed ascendant, would seem to have great relevance. this is part of what i picked up from reading bonattis approach to finding the ruler of the ingress chart. i think it is the same for these charts too. it certainly is in relation to distributor ideas i have been exposed to where any planet in the same degree of the bound or terms where the ascendant is share the role of distributor with the ruler of the bound..

i do think it would be beneficial if astrologers who are commenting here gave more examples to others for learning purposes.. we all have a different orientation to astrology, but we would benefit from seeing how others explain their approach in real examples for today.. i was trying to sort out some of this thinking i could use pope francis's chart.. i had shared what i was looking at in another thread here on skyscript. i am torn over the fact that the time for his chart appears rounded off and the midheaven is at a very early degree of taurus when it could be late aries which would make a big difference in terms of how central mars is in the solar return chart and profected charts with the time i have for him(9pm).. it also shows up in the primary direction data i examined with sun directed to a conjunction of mars. i did not consider what the distributors would have been in all of this, so i am missing a piece of the hellenistic and medival astrologers tool box, but then i have seen no use of this in examples anywhere on skyscript for that matter!

if i come across as poking at the folks at skyscript it is mostly as i would like to see some share their insight and wisdom as opposed to keeping it to themselves.. maybe their is a fear of being wrong, or being challenged!!

and finally - i am sure i have said enough here to be accused of some oversight or negligence and will do the best i can to address any isolated comment i have made that others don't share and want to discuss. thanks!

james_m wrote:curtis seems to suggest valens is not consistent.. ben dykes gives a bit of this flavour too about abu mashar by saying he is doing things differently from others. that is how i am reading things.

I think we have to be careful here. What appears as an inconsistency, Schmidt has sometimes shown to be a literary device or a composite concept. Sometimes the exception explains the rule. Most people will interpret "inconsistent" to mean gibberish = ignore. You won't get very far with that attitude. The question one should be asking is: why is it different or apparently inconsistent?

thanks curtis. i don't think inconsistent means anything like gibberish. i use the word based on different astrologers from the past taking a different approach to the same predictive techniques available to use. any comments on valens using solar return charts, as opposed to only profection charts? you seem to have studied valens more closely.

here is a quote thanks to astrojin from schmidt and rileys translation of valens that has application to the idea of how the solar return and profection might interact with one another.

astrojin wrote: 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 examine 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.