Re: Zodiacal Primary Directions 61 by rob Hi Martin, I promise I will disturb you less frequently in the future but I am also interested in your opinion about Zodiacal Parallels. The mundo parallels of a planet are points on the primary path of the planet. They are projections around the plane of the Meridian or around the plane of the horizon. Sepharial in his book(Primary Directions Made Easy) says that zodiacal parallels are degrees of the Zodiac which have the same declination as the planet at birth. My question is: Is Sepharial's definition of Zodiacal Parallels correct? Perhaps there are other definitions this is what I'd like to know. regards, rob Quote Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:33 am
62 by Petr Hi Rob, I watch with satisfaction the development of Morinus,doing a very nice work.Performed I?m some control results of Placidus primary directions.Mundo directions are in order,as well zodiacal PD without latitude - angles.To any error,but occurs in the calculation interplanetary zodiacal PD without latitude.A great part is correct,but some are wrong.For an example: Natal 8.10.1981,13:21GMT,55N42,013E11,House Placidus,Key Naibod Jupiter 19?31'40'' Libra Saturn 13?07'31'' Libra Isn?t possibly direction Jupiter D - square Saturn 19.4.1982(13.6.2029) Verification I?m do by the help of Placidus and finally by hand. Zodiacal decl.parallels are important,their stress approximates conjuction and opposition(antiparallel). Regards, Petr Quote Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:26 pm
63 by Petr Sepharial in his book-Primary Directions a definitive study-says: A zodiacal parallel is formed by directing a body to the place held by a zodiacal degree which has the same declination as that held by a planet to which direction is made. Quote Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:37 pm
64 by rob Petr wrote:Natal 8.10.1981,13:21GMT,55N42,013E11,House Placidus,Key Naibod Jupiter 19?31'40'' Libra Saturn 13?07'31'' Libra Isn?t possibly direction Jupiter D - square Saturn 19.4.1982(13.6.2029) Hi Petr, Thanks for your help! I will check this direction. So, zodiacal parallel means: planet to the zodiacal point having the same declination as the planet at birth and zodiacal contra/anti-parallel means the directions to the opposition of the zodiacal parallel, if I understood you correctly. Your program, ZET, is really one of the best astrology programs for Windows. regards, rob Quote Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:52 pm
Re: Zodiacal Primary Directions 65 by Martin Gansten I hope that your book about PDs will also be available in english. That's the language I'm writing it in. Almost done now... Look for it this coming summer! Zodiacal parallels or parallels of declination are small circles parallel to the celestial equator, connecting points sharing the same declination, and therefore the same diurnal and nocturnal semi-arcs. When these points are on the ecliptic, we call them antiscia. Quote Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:43 pm
66 by Petr For zodiacal directions we use projections of bodies in ecliptic.That's why even we use for parallels projections body's declination on ecliptic.We search by calculating point of ecliptic, which is on the same declination like body;that means,point is situated at the cross declination circle body with ecliptic.Then point is promisor,with we direct ,for instance ,to the plane of the local meridian(parallel - MC),or on the horizont(parallel-Asc)etc. Parallels are also important to MC,Asc. Zodiacal dec.parallel cann't be counted for bodies,which have declination over ~23?27'. Quote Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:13 pm
67 by rob This is bad news. So parallels(mundane!?, zodiacal) can be both promissors and significators. Perhaps this is true for midpoints(mundane, parallel) as well. The Primary Directions is really complicated. Quote Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:57 pm
68 by Martin Gansten rob wrote:This is bad news. So parallels(mundane!?, zodiacal) can be both promissors and significators. As far as I know, they are not normally used as significators. Like aspects, they serve only as promissors. Mundane parallels (an invention by Placidus) are based on an entirely different principle, just like mundane 'aspects' are, namely on the relative proportions of the semi-arcs of the planets. Perhaps this is true for midpoints(mundane, parallel) as well. The Primary Directions is really complicated. I would say that classical primary directions are fairly simple to grasp in principle, although the calculations may be cumbersome without software. All the really complicated stuff seems to originate with Placidus. Quote Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:27 pm
69 by rob Martin Gansten wrote:[As far as I know, they are not normally used as significators. Like aspects, they serve only as promissors. Sepharial in his PDs Made Easy gives examples of both mundane and zodiacal parallels. In these examples the zodiacal parallels are significators. Maybe the Kolev-Placidus should be checked. Perhaps this is true in case of zodiacal midpoints. Quote Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:58 pm
70 by Martin Gansten rob wrote:Sepharial in his PDs Made Easy gives examples of both mundane and zodiacal parallels. In these examples the zodiacal parallels are significators. Sepharial did a fair amount of talking through his hat, but I can't find any such example in the book to which you refer. Basically, a zodiacal parallel/parallel of declination is an antiscium with latitude, and is treated like an aspect. And aspects are not acted upon (significators); rather, they act upon things (as promissors). Quote Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:40 pm
71 by rob Martin Gansten wrote:I can't find any such example in the book to which you refer. I have it in ebook published by Canopus Publications (Australia). In chapter "Zodiacal Parallels" (Chapter V) he directs the Sun and the Moon to the zod. parallels of saturn(decl=18deg46). I can accept that Sepharial is not the most reliable source. Quote Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:18 pm
72 by Martin Gansten rob wrote:I have it in ebook published by Canopus Publications (Australia). In chapter "Zodiacal Parallels" (Chapter V) he directs the Sun and the Moon to the zod. parallels of saturn(decl=18deg46). I can accept that Sepharial is not the most reliable source. Aha. I think the terminology is tripping us up here. I was using 'significator' and 'promissor' in the older sense: the significator is that which signifies an area of life, the promissor is that which affects it, irrespective of which is directed to which. This is different from Rumen Kolev's use of the terms. That said, when older authors (including, in this case, Sepharial) speak of 'directing the Sun/Moon to planet or aspect X', they are really moving X by primary motion, and not the Sun or Moon. Also note that Sepharial reverses the modern concept of direct and converse as used by Pearce, Leo and others (which tself is a departure from the traditional use of these terms). Much of what seems difficult about primary directions is really a matter of understanding the technical terms empoyed by older authors. I have devoted a substantial amount of space to explaining them in my book (which is now nearly finished). Quote Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:19 am