Skyscript Astrology Forum

P 78

...although the direction of ascendant to the (natal) trine of mercury had already perfected the year before...

Here, the ascendant is obviously the signifactor but which way is it moving to the trine of mercury ? or is it the zodiacal point of 10 deg aquarius ( the trine point of mercury)moving to conjunct the ascendant .

pankajdubey wrote:Here, the ascendant is obviously the signifactor but which way is it moving to the trine of mercury ? or is it the zodiacal point of 10 deg aquarius ( the trine point of mercury)moving to conjunct the ascendant .

Yes, from the perspective of observational astronomy it is the aspect point that is moving towards the horizon. These matters are discussed on pp. 32-37 and 68-70. (From p. 33: So the significator’s symbolic motion through the zodiac is actually accomplished by the zodiac being moved across the natal significator, which is kept fixed.) If you think this is a counterintuitive way of describing things, it may comfort you to know that al-Bīrūnī thought the same, about a millennium ago. Nevertheless, I have stuck to the traditional style in order to provide a bridge into earlier textual sources for the reader.

martin,

thanks! i think there are a few reasons many astrologers are not using primary directions, not the least if they had to do the calculations without the aid of an astro software program, it would appear to be difficult to do.. but alas, i am still interested in understanding them and how they might offer some insight which is why i read your book with keen interest...

the chart i posted if off the data of primary directions, not converse directions... so, perhaps for convenience sake i would like to ask, can we use the terms clockwise, verses counter clockwise in any of this?? below is a picture of the comparison using converse PDs...



the chart above is for late 2000, or when example J is about 19 years old.. one can see here how the angles have moved in a clockwise manner with the midheaven reaching the place of mercury as positioned on the inside wheel of the natal chart.. it is essentially the opposite of the one that i posted yesterday..

so is the 'primary direction' in the chart i posted of the angles and planets moving counterclockwise, or is it like in the above chart where the angles and planets are moving clockwise??

i have been paying attention to your comments in the book and the one you express here is mentioned in the book too - "Converse directions can be important, but have traditionally been considered less powerful than direct ones. " you make a number of comments that i am intrigued by... obviously i appreciate your sharing your own experience and trying to convey your understanding of both the astrologers from the past and your own work in trying to fathom it... i would really like to understand it all better, so yes - my enquiries are meant in a good spirit! thanks..

I never doubted the good intentions of your questions, James. To save me the bother of re-typing things, though, can I ask you to re-read pp. 35-37 on the concepts of direct and converse?

Basically, before the 19th century (when many misunderstandings began to creep into European astrology due to the lack of an unbroken tradition), all directions were made with the primary motion, that is, clockwise = forward in time. Some were called direct, others converse, but 'converse' did not mean backwards in time/anticlockwise.

What almost all modern software calls converse is thus different from the traditional concept of converse. The only exception I'm currently aware of is Delphic Oracle (because Curtis took my course).

I think the main reason most modern astrologers don't use primary directions is that they have no idea how to use them (because they have lost touch with the more than 1,500-year tradition to which they were central). Even if there is software to do the calculations, you need to understand both what the various technical options mean and how to interpret directions. This is why I wrote my earlier book, and included a lot of material on directions in the recent one, and also why I offer an entire course on the subject.

Martin Gansten wrote:

pankajdubey wrote:Here, the ascendant is obviously the signifactor but which way is it moving to the trine of mercury ? or is it the zodiacal point of 10 deg aquarius ( the trine point of mercury)moving to conjunct the ascendant .

Yes, from the perspective of observational astronomy it is the aspect point that is moving towards the horizon. These matters are discussed on pp. 32-37 and 68-70. (From p. 33: So the significator’s symbolic motion through the zodiac is actually accomplished by the zodiac being moved across the natal significator, which is kept fixed.) If you think this is a counterintuitive way of describing things, it may comfort you to know that al-Bīrūnī thought the same, about a millennium ago. Nevertheless, I have stuck to the traditional style in order to provide a bridge into earlier textual sources for the reader.

The problem with explaining the motion still exists :
Describing the motion of signifactor by keeping it fixed :-)

pankajdubey wrote:The problem with explaining the motion still exists :
Describing the motion of signifactor by keeping it fixed :-)

Think of it as a two-stage process. The first stage is purely symbolic: you select a point in the chart and imagine moving it forward (or, in the case of converse directions, backward) through the chart, passing through the terms and encountering the bodies and aspects of the planets, fixed stars, etc.

The second stage is translating this symbolic motion into natural, using the primary motion of the celestial sphere following birth (never before birth): how can these points be brought into contact? In the present case, it is only by the aspect point moving up to the eastern horizon.

thanks martin... that is helpful to recommend i re-read the section you refer to page 35-37.... a part of me thinks i ought to invest in your course and skip investing in 100's of dollars of books, but i am not a fan of online courses - maybe because i have never taken any! spending money in bits and drabs with a book here and here seems easier!


using my example @ Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:07 pm - the moon has been directed to the position of the ascendant. do i have that correct?? as a byproduct it appears mercury has been directed to the midheaven so why doesn't that one count as a primary direction?? or is it that only the angles are going in a primary direction and the planets are stationary?? or?? i think you are correct the term primary directions are hard to appreciate... what is the prime direction of the planets? is this the same as the direction of the sun over the course of the day?? is that considered the primary motion? so mercury can't technically go in the direction of the midheaven as it is already past the midheaven... for that to happen it would have to be going in a counter clockwise or converse direction.. i use these terms in the way i think of the sun going clockwise over the course of the day...

it holds a promise - promissor, or it signifies something - a significator.... i think one of the reasons for me these terms are hard to appreciate is i think of planets all holding promise or signifying something.... so perhaps i find the terms confusing... the planets can switch and be thought of as promissors or significators, as can the sun, moon, midheaven and ascendant.... all of this is because?? because one is either looking at primary directions or converse primary directions?? in the options you provide to get this data i recognize how the data changes, so i take it this is all based on whether one is looking at the PDs or the converse PDs...

on a different but related technical note - you mention with lattitude countless times in the book... i am sure it holds meaning for you, but it is a bit vague what you are implying... are you just re-emphasizing the fact latitude is being used only on the significators for PDs, or??

thanks martin.. sorry for being tedious here... i really would like to understand and i will be the first to acknowledge having to write down ideas isn't the best way to convey more complicated or abstract concepts... any help and insight you are willing to share, i am very appreciative... thanks...

Well, James, it sounds as if you could use the course! Did you see my reply to Pankaj about the two-stage process?

Think of it as a two-stage process. The first stage is purely symbolic: you select a point in the chart and imagine moving it forward (or, in the case of converse directions, backward) through the chart, passing through the terms and encountering the bodies and aspects of the planets, fixed stars, etc.

The second stage is translating this symbolic motion into natural, using the primary motion of the celestial sphere following birth (never before birth): how can these points be brought into contact? In the present case, it is only by the aspect point moving up to the eastern horizon.

So you begin by deciding on a significator: a point that signifies the matter you want to investigate. Next, you move that symbolically along until it meets a point that 'promises' some change for better a worse: a promissor. Then you figure out how that contact will come about by the natural (clockwise, at least if you live in the northern hemisphere) motion of the celestial sphere. In direct directions, this will be by keeping the significator fixed (even if it is a planet) and letting the promissor move towards it.

Primary directions is actually a modern term: it was coined by Placidus in the 17th century (because he invented another technique which he called secondary directions, and he needed to distinguish them). Before that, they were just called directions. But yes, the primary motion used for (primary) directions is the same as that of the sun over the course of a day: the rotation of the celestial sphere, or of the earth around its axis, if you prefer.

The example you give is a primary direction, but a converse one (as I said before), where from the point of observational astronomy the promissor (Mercury) is kept fixed and the significator (the degree on the MC) is moved towards it. Symbolically, we would say that the MC is directed to Mercury against the order of the signs (= conversely), because it is always the significator that is said to be directed to something.

Planets, especially the luminaries, can be either significators or promissors, but the angles can only be significators (with a single exception, to do with the length of life), and aspect points can only be promissors.

When a promissor has latitude (that is, when it is a planet other than the sun), you can direct a significator either to its actual body in the sky or to its projected position on the ecliptic (= its zodiacal position). The former is a direction with latitude, the latter is one without latitude.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

I forgot to answer your question about the moon. Because the angles can only be significators, we would say that the Asc as significator has been directed to (a conjunction with) the moon without latitude by direct motion. The corresponding direction with latitude (that is, using the actual body of the moon rather than its ecliptical/zodiacal degree) took place four years later. This is something you can't see when using a chart rather than a table/speculum to look at directions.

Japanese Zen koan:
Who is the signifactor , who is the promissor.
Who is going direct and who is converse ?
https://youtu.be/OUDV6lxzcCc
It is the time that limits us- if life is 120yrs max and we have a degree for a year then all events have to be fitted in that 120 degree movement.
7 planets + conjunction sextile square trine and opposition -to increase the events add Asc And MC to it.
7 planets are general to all but ascendant and MC are more specific to me.
As soon as you do that it starts getting complicated.
The PDs should be explained in simple terms.
Let me move and see what I encounter.
I stay put and see what comes to me.

Pankaj

martin,

thanks.. i would be the first to admit i am confused and need to take your course! i have this ingrained habit of wanting to figure it out on my own, but realize i am taking advantage of your good nature asking you all these questions! i like to think i am an autodidact, but in fact we all learn from each other and i would be the first to acknowledge that, especially here where i am trying to learn from you and your book!

sticking with the example of the moon to ascendant - you say

Martin Gansten wrote:I forgot to answer your question about the moon. Because the angles can only be significators, we would say that the Asc as significator has been directed to (a conjunction with) the moon without latitude by direct motion. The corresponding direction with latitude (that is, using the actual body of the moon rather than its ecliptical/zodiacal degree) took place four years later. This is something you can't see when using a chart rather than a table/speculum to look at directions.

first off, i think part of my problem is leaning too heavily on the morinus software... when i get the speculum for this ( 2002) it says - Z for zodiac) moon(promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2002 - 01/15..... it also says further down M for mundane) moon ( promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2004 - 04/02...

looking at the speculum i note ascendant 17 cap 42 for 2002 april 16th and midheaven 18 scorpio 59.. in the natal chart moon is at 17 cap 13, so the ascendant has already passed this point by 2002... may 15 2001 directed ascendant is at 15 cap 55... so some time between may 2001 and april 2002 - the ascendant passed by the location by degree - zodiac - of moon... the speculum says jan 15, 2002 as i mentioned in the last paragraph! but it is only 2 years later, and not 4 when it shows this via the mundane directions.... so are the mundane directions based on latitude and the zodiac not??

i suppose the columns could be ordered different on the morinus software, so i am still fighting thru the use of the language and via the software i am using, along with the fact that i am a slow learner, lol!

pankajdubey...

looking at the wheel reminds me of how my head is spinning trying to understand these directions!! it also reminded me of my time in india in that area which we really enjoyed.. we had the good fortune of meeting a group of palace musicians coming back on monday from jodhpur to jaiper who invited us to their house in jaiper... they were a muslim family -very gracious and amazing world class musicians - living in very humble circumstances, but very kind to use treating us to a world class musical experience of classical indian music, along with supper... we never got to see the women who cooked the food for us.... we were in a room with all men.. however, when we were leaving, we turned back to see the women waving from the window to us... it was a very memorable experience and one of great kindness on their part... it was one of our most memorable experiences in india! we may have passed thru the area where the video is from as we were on both the train from jaisalmer to jaiper and again on the train from jaiper to amritsar..

You're welcome, James. As I said, it's gratifying to see people working with the book -- and hopefully one or two others may be learning something from this exchange too.

first off, i think part of my problem is leaning too heavily on the morinus software...

Nearly all software offering primary directions presents them in a way that differs from traditional usage. That is why I have a separate appendix on how to set up, but also how to read the output of, software like Morinus. You may want to look more closely at that.

We also get different figures for the moon because I correct its position for parallax (Options > Appearance I > Topocentric).

when i get the speculum for this ( 2002) it says - Z for zodiac) moon(promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2002 - 01/15..... it also says further down M for mundane) moon ( promissor) is directed to ascendant ( significator ) 2004 - 04/02...

As I said before, in traditional terminology it is always the significator that is directed to the promissor, never vice versa, so we need to read these from right to left.

so are the mundane directions based on latitude and the zodiac not??

Mundane conjunctions/oppositions will coincide in practice with zodiacal conjunctions/oppositions with latitude, but not other aspects. I discuss this on pp. 68-70.