Skyscript Astrology Forum

pankajdubey wrote:I do agree with Pingree’s assertion that kanyakubja is most likely Brahmin. It is almost that if you say kanyakubja it is presumed kanyakubja Brahmin even though it relates to an area.

We're wildly off-topic now, but just to clarify: if you are referring to Balabhadra himself (whom Pingree described as 'a K??nyakubja Br??hmaṇa'), then it is clear from Balabhadra's self-description at the beginning of his work that he was indeed a Brahmin of the Bharadv??ja gotra and that his ancestors hailed from K??nyakubja/Kannauj, though he doesn't say where he himself was born (which I suspect was Varanasi).

It uses the 4 th house for both parents but the fifth house specifically states - unions( annotated as- sexual) different from what is often not recommended in now-traditional western astrology.

Yes, from the context (with 'the forming of the limbs of a foetus' immediately following), the word संधान saṃdh??na (literally 'putting together') seems most likely to refer to coitus. Balabhadra quotes this meaning without comment from one Caṇ???eśvara, but I don't think he uses it in any of his own examples.

The tambira configuration itself is very interesting.

Do you mean its origin as a 'creative misunderstanding'?

Thanks Martin,
Interesting in how he allows the consideration of a quesited planet moving in the next sign ,and ithhasala in next sign with a dignified planet in that sign ,hence a favourable outcome but no mention of relation to the L1 .
He does not mention whether Venus applies to Jupiter as well.
..
He doesn’t mention the mutual reception by exaltation between Jupiter and Venus and that Saturn in next sign will be in Jupiter’s own sign and hence the connection between the three.

I'm still making my way through this book, and very much enjoying it so far.

However, whilst I haven't finished the book, I did feel compelled to reply to some rather unpleasant comments about Martin Gansten and his conclusions here on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2554634 ... 885485959/

In it, I learned, Gansten is a "whole sign house denier" - a new term for me which seems to imply someone, much like say a holocaust denier, who denies that some major historical developement or event occurred. I'm honestly fed up with this kind of religiosity about the history of houses, whole sign houses in particular, and worse, the kind of disinterest that someone would pay to an astrologer who is also an academic. Obviously PhD carrying astrologers are somewhat thin on the ground (though there are a healthy number of them) but you would think that there might be some pause, or a desire to find some nuance rather than remove nuance when you realise the person commenting on the history is themselves as much an expert on history as someone can be. That doesnt' imply they'd always be right or that anything they say needs to be taken as gospel, but you might imagine that they would at least be given some benefit of the doubt. Sadly not in the compelling world of social media.

I'm honestly just sick to death of this kind of religiosity when it comes to house systems, let alone zodiacs.

Whilst I'm the admin of skyscript, until Deborah Houlding sees fit to do away with me, I would like to suggest that Skyscript be a place where such religiosity does not exist. This also applies to the zodiac of choice. I know there's been some tension on this in the past. But I would like to draw a line in the sand here. Use any zodiac and any house system you want on any forum on this site - if you think it might lead to confusion, try to include what you're using in the chart so we all know what we're looking at.

Also let's double down on adding nuance rather than subtracting it.

"Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance", Albert Maysles

Thank you, Paul. I've been called many things, but that's a first for me. It is interesting to see the degree to which this particular idea has become an article of faith and a shibboleth, sorting the true believers from the heretics. Rejecting whole-sign houses in favour of systems that have a history of 1,500 to 2,000 years is unacceptable if you want to be a 'traditional' astrologer, while using Uranus or sesquisquares is fine...

Actually, speaking as a historian of astrology, I would be very interested to see any textual evidence explicitly teaching the concept of whole-sign houses. As I say in the book, I don't doubt they were often used, as they still are in India. Perhaps such evidence will turn up one day, perhaps not. The question of how well they work will still be a separate matter, of course.

In any case, I'm glad I've stayed away from Facebook.

i know i used to joke about this trad fundamentalism when i first came to skyscript.. while it was disappearing, i was becoming educated in traditional astrology...

i have noticed the parallels in music where people are very particular about what kinds of music they will or won't listen to... generally unless you are a musician - and even musicians suffer from this condition - most people get attached to a particular style and think all the others are beneath them, or unworthy of there attention....

it seems the same thing happens in certain astrological circles - fundamentalism sets in and the downside of it becomes apparent for anyone to see.. instead of accepting that others will do astrology with a different system, they express intolerance!

no better place to see this is in religion! apparently it has to be jesus, or buddha, mohammad or krishna as god - but it can't be all of them!!!

i think astrology does share something in common with religion and music... fanatics and bigots won't recognize their narrow view or how it closes them off from so much, but open minded people in all these same fields will appreciate and put it all in context... well - i am speaking optimistically here....

Wot?! Now that I was going to make swearing unquestioning obedience to Robert Schmidt a requirement for getting permission to post in the traditional forum!

Well, I am taking a more liberate stand on this question than my predecessor, evidently. My criterion being the overall thrust and aim of a post rather than strict adherence to what we may think of as the traditional approach.

I would probably be surprised to see someone using Gauquelin sectors in a post there, however, if it were, say, in the context of a comparative study that involves ancient techniques as well, I'd have no issue with it.

Much like in regards to spiritual traditions in general, I believe that there is a singular truth underlying all of astrology, which we attempt to get a hold on perusing whatever school and methods we may prefer on an individual level.

Respectful discussion of the pros and cons of different approaches is fine, but dogmatic insistence on any one approach being binding for anyone who claims to be an astrologer is clearly out of place on Skyscript.

Edit: I am occasionally posting on a martial arts forum - the most heated debates there feel like an old ladies' tea party with cake compared to the kind of altercations astrologers tend to engage in!

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I just added a page to my website where I discuss, inter alia, the slightly bizarre charge of 'whole-sign house denialism' and the use of different methods of house division in ancient astrology generally:
https://astrology.martingansten.com/for-astrologers/

I personally avoid social media, but anyone wishing to share the link with others is of course welcome to do so.

thanks martin,

it would be fun to talk about robert zollers chart in a separate thread...

Thank you Martin for sharing your view on this debate on Whole House system and Zodiac issue.
To complement your article, a debate here
https://theastrologypodcast.com/2015/11 ... -division/
About halfway in the page, Comments section, Deborah Houlding and Chris Brennan explain their view on House issue.

Blessings,
Ouranos

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat Oct 31, 2020 2:01 pm For anyone who is interested, there is now an extract from my forthcoming book Annual Predictive Techniques of the Greek, Arabic and Indian Astrologers here:
https://astrology.martingansten.com/books/

The book itself should go off to the press (or wherever it is books go nowadays) on Monday and hopefully be available for purchase quite soon, depending on various covid-related factors.

Hi Martin

I'm reading your book and posted a thread about it yesterday.
It is related to combination of profections with Primary directions.
I'm a bit reluctant to use PDs from the Asc since birthtimes are rarely accurate to the minute. I was thinking of Lisa Marie Presley when I wrote it but then realised you were using sidereal zodiac. I'm trying to figure out how it would have worked with tropical. She inherited from Elvis at 25 a 2nd house pfifection in Virgo whose ruler is in 8th house in mutual reception with Jupiter in 2nd. So it works well though there's no Leo and Sun signifying her dad.

Misho wrote: Sun Apr 27, 2025 8:28 pm I'm a bit reluctant to use PDs from the Asc since birthtimes are rarely accurate to the minute. [...]

I think that topic is best discussed in a new thread. I'll create one in a minute.