Skyscript Astrology Forum

But what is the "Domicile lord of the directed Hyleg " ?

Let us imagine the profection or the SR is in Leo.

should I direct the Hyleg of the radix chart to WHAT?

margherita

Paul described what I was thinking of. The sign may be the same but the houses and aspects change. I just could not see the importance of creating special procedures just because the Sun remains in the same zodiacal position.

Margherita wrote:

But what is the "Domicile lord of the directed Hyleg " ?

Let us imagine the profection or the SR is in Leo.

should I direct the Hyleg of the radix chart to WHAT?

margherita

Hi Margherita,

I am no authority on Perso-Arabic astrology but in this context I assumed we are simply using the term 'direction' to imply either using primary direction or circumambulation (taking oblique ascension of the signs in natal location into account.)

From Ben Dykes workshop I formed the impression there was traditionally more focus on the bound the ASC/Hyleg was directed to than domicile lord. Naturally, the hyleg could spend decades in one sign! So the main focus was the location of the directed hyleg by bound (its ruler planet by period being the distributor). The last planet to have an aspect to the directed hyleg operates as a kind of co-ruler for the period.

My understanding is that the focus seems to have changed away from using primary directions/circumambulations for calculating planetary periods of the ASC or hyleg in Perso-Arabic astrology to a more widespread examination of the next applying aspects by primary direction in renaissance astrology.

In short pds seem to have started to be used more like glorified transits in the renaissance period and the original focus of giving a system of time lords seems to have been effectively ''lost in translation.''

Mark

Mark wrote:
From Ben Dykes workshop I formed the impression there was traditionally more focus on the bound the ASC/Hyleg was directed to than domicile lord.

Mark

You are saying to me that we should consider the ruler of the bound the RADIX Hyleg/Ascendant is arrived by direction, true?

But in this way there is no link to profection at all

Mine is only a question. I heard Dykes' mp3 about solar return and in fact I was wondering about the "proxy" planet. Quite obscure to me

margherita

hi margherita,

the idea that initiated this conversation is what to do when the profection sign on the ascendant is cancer or leo, based on the idea that an alternate planet was thought necessary to use in the advent of cancer or leo rising as one couldn't use the moon or sun as lord of the year. another issue that confuses a lot of astrologers today (me anyway) is how to prioritize all the data if one is using profections, primary directions and solar returns, not to mention whatever else they might want to consider.

based on my read of all this and the comments of some others, greater emphasis might be given to the bound lord of the ascendant/hyleg in the advent of the sign of the ascendant in the profection was cancer/leo. this would put more emphasis on primary directions which martin gansten for example seems to think were given greater emphasis in the past as i understand him. astrojin from what i read of him seems to think the solar return is more fundamental to astrologers going back to valens based on what i have read from him. maybe bezza thinks profection data trumps all of this and that view might be in keeping with some persia/arabic astrologers from a particular time and era too. ultimately i think the emphasis in a particular direction will seem to be getting further away from the centrality of profections or not, depending on ones approach.. maybe mark or someone else has something to say that will cast more light on this issue for me personally and others too..

margherita wrote:

Mark wrote:
From Ben Dykes workshop I formed the impression there was traditionally more focus on the bound the ASC/Hyleg was directed to than domicile lord.

Mark

You are saying to me that we should consider the ruler of the bound the RADIX Hyleg/Ascendant is arrived by direction, true?

But in this way there is no link to profection at all

Mine is only a question. I heard Dykes' mp3 about solar return and in fact I was wondering about the "proxy" planet. Quite obscure to me

margherita

Margherita wrote:

You are saying to me that we should consider the ruler of the bound the RADIX Hyleg/Ascendant is arrived by direction, true?

Not me. Abu Ma'shar!

Margherita wrote:

But in this way there is no link to profection at all

This was a very important technique in itself. In the hierarchy of time lords this would be greater than the annual profection or solar return.

But as to why we go for this point during a Leo/Cancer profectional year I can only speculate. I agree this sounds odd and doesn't make a lot of sense to me at present.

Hopefully, some better informed person can comment on the logic of this?

Margherita wrote:

Mine is only a question. I heard Dykes' mp3 about solar return and in fact I was wondering about the "proxy" planet. Quite obscure to me

Blame those pesky Persians! Basically, they consider a 'distributor' or bound lord. This planet designates the main theme and meaning of that life period. They also consider the most closely aspecting planet in the nativity to the bound lord which communicates moods and intentions of the mind.

The 'partner' is the most recently aspected /conjoined planet in the distribution/direction. The partner designates more people, events, activities. This influence continues until the directed ASC or hyleg forms a new aspect.

The kind of directions we are discussing here are not pure primary directions but ascensional directions aka distributions which vary time wise depending on the latitude of the nativity.

Intriguingly this technique of tracking the ASC through the bounds can also be used with the SR ascendant over the space of a year. We can examine when the annual ascensions change sign, bound and conjuncts planets. Of particular significance is when the annual ascensions of the SR ascendant conjoin the profected Lord of The Year (LOY).

Mark

Mark wrote:Blame those pesky Persians! Basically, they consider a 'distributor' or bound lord. This planet designates the main theme and meaning of that life period. They also consider the most closely aspecting planet in the nativity to the bound lord which communicates moods and intentions of the mind.

The 'partner' is the most recently aspected /conjoined planet in the distribution/direction. The partner designates more people, events, activities. This influence continues until the directed ASC or hyleg forms a new aspect.

The kind of directions we are discussing here are not pure primary directions but ascensional directions aka distributions which vary time wise depending on the latitude of the nativity.

The notion of directing a significator (or several significators) both through the terms and to the aspects/conjunctions of the planets goes back to the Greeks and is discussed both by authors who direct only by rising times (oblique ascension) and by those who use the full spectrum of what we call primary directions (right, oblique and mixed ascensions), including Ptolemy.

Some Arabic authors emphasize the role of the term ruler or divisor (which Ben Dykes translates as 'distributor') over that of the promissor (planet encountered); others, following Ptolemy, do the opposite. Interestingly, though, if we read the descriptions in Masha'allah or Abu Ma'shar, there isn't all that much difference between the expected outcome of having a significator pass through, say, the terms of Saturn aspected by Venus or the terms of Venus aspected by Saturn.

Martin Gansten wrote:

The notion of directing a significator (or several significators) both through the terms and to the aspects/conjunctions of the planets goes back to the Greeks and is discussed both by authors who direct only by rising times (oblique ascension) and by those who use the full spectrum of what we call primary directions (right, oblique and mixed ascensions), including Ptolemy.

Thanks. Yes I was aware of that. Not least due to reading several of your previous posts here on Skyscript and your book. But sometimes the humour wins out over strict historical accuracy.

As you will have noticed the original focus of the thread is the Perso-Arabic approach to profectional years with Leo/Cancer rising. I assume the Hellenistic astrologers never highlighted this as an issue?

Martin Gansten wrote:

Some Arabic authors emphasize the role of the term ruler or divisor (which Ben Dykes translates as 'distributor') over that of the promissor (planet encountered); others, following Ptolemy, do the opposite. Interestingly, though, if we read the descriptions in Masha'allah or Abu Ma'shar, there isn't all that much difference between the expected outcome of having a significator pass through, say, the terms of Saturn aspected by Venus or the terms of Venus aspected by Saturn.

What I am interested in is the historical use of primaries in the renaissance period and afterwards. I assume they are mostly giving priority to Ptolemy over other traditions by then? The question is when do references to the bound lord get dropped altogether?

And when does the focus shift to calculating every possible direction rather than ones restricted to the ASC or hyleg?

Mark

Mark wrote:As you will have noticed the original focus of the thread is the Perso-Arabic approach to profectional years with Leo/Cancer rising. I assume the Hellenistic astrologers never highlighted this as an issue?

Not that I've seen, but others have read e.g. Valens much more carefully than I. Perhaps Chris Brennan could answer this, if he's following the thread.

What I am interested in is the historical use of primaries in the renaissance period and afterwards. I assume they are mostly giving priority to Ptolemy over other traditions by then? The question is when do references to the bound lord get dropped altogether?

Yes, Ptolemy is the authority in the Renaissance. As for the terms, Morin rejects them, but they're still there (albeit not very emphasized) in William Lilly, so it was probably a gradual process. Worsdale in the 19th century rejected the traditional terms but calculated his own terms in a different way which (as far as I've been able to make out) he never explains -- but it's probably based on Placidean ideas. (Placidus himself used the traditional terms.) So the point where they were lost altogether is probably quite recent, within the last 200 years.

And when does the focus shift to calculating every possible direction rather than ones restricted to the ASC or hyleg?

To some extent, that strand is present all along. Valens (IV.29) has the following quotation ascribed to Hermes (transl. Riley):

Valens wrote:It is necessary to make the progression [peripatos, the word that some translate as 'circumambulation' - MG] from all the stars to all the other stars according to the rising times of the signs in each klima. For example: for a wife, daughters, or female individuals, calculate from Venus; when forecasting concerning actions or related matters, calculate from Mercury; when forecasting about dangers, death, sickness, or bleeding, calculate from the malefics in aspect with the Ascendant, the sun, or the moon. Similarly for the other matters. It is also necessary to note the terms in which the progressions are located, which stars are casting rays, and which stars are transiting the sign of the progression. Likewise note how the transmitter and the receiver relate to the nativity, how they rose, and how they were at the nativity.

Similar passages are found in several of the medieval Arabic authors. Morin strongly advocated this (saying that the terms were invented to explain events that could be more properly explained using the non-luminary planets as significators), and Lilly mentions it as well. But most authors kept to the Ptolemaic five, or added only the prenatal syzygy, and this is true even in the late 19th century. The wholly modern way of directing anything to anything (as in the so-called Topocentric system) is very recent, post WWII, I think.

Thanks for all your kind replies.
I was aware of the direction of the Ascendant through terms anyway I missed the link between this and the Cancer/Leo profection/solar return.

In practice in this case the general method prevails on the secondary level technique- this is the essential idea, it seems to me from your words.

Prof. Bezza takes the ruler of the term the profection is arrived (because he does not use the whole sign system)- anyway I don't have any reference .

margherita

Margherita wrote:

I was aware of the direction of the Ascendant through terms anyway. I missed the link between this and the Cancer/Leo profection/solar return.

Your not the only one! I certainly struggle with the rationale behind this too. And that for me means I will not use the idea. I need to know the logical case for using an astrological technique.

Margherita wrote:

Prof. Bezza takes the ruler of the term the profection is arrived (because he does not use the whole sign system)- anyway I don't have any reference.

Interesting. Its certainly has a logical link to the profected ascendant.

To recap medieval/renaissance degree by degree profections were only done for the 5 Ptolemaic hyleg points ie Sun, Moon, ASC, MC and Fortuna correct? Do you track the terms/bounds they are in generally?

Ben Dykes is teaching a method of annual directions using the solar return ascendant and tracking it through the bounds over the year.

Mark

Mark wrote:
To recap medieval/renaissance degree by degree profections were only done for the 5 Ptolemaic hyleg points ie Sun, Moon, ASC, MC and Fortuna correct? Do you track the terms/bounds they are in generally?

Prof. Bezza always takes for ruler of Sun/Moon the bound ruler- even in the radix chart- no idea from which author, maybe some Hellenistic one, Valens? Someone else?

Ben Dykes is teaching a method of annual directions using the solar return ascendant and tracking it through the bounds over the year.

I heard Dykes' lecture about SR. Fantastic!!!
Moreover he talks very slowly, so it's easy for us strangers to understand everything. Loved him

margherita