Hi everyone,

As I continue to practice astrology, I have a google keep note, with questions which get added from time to time.
Technical questions, doctrine questions, experiment methods of chart analysis, etc.
Here're a few, if you'll be kind and willing to participate in a discussion:


1) As far as I know/remember, the Hellenistic approach to houses can be primarily sign-based. Say, Sun in 5 degrees of Capricorn and Moon in 25 degrees of Taurus would be considered 'in a trine configuration' under such an approach.
This raises the question of what modern astrologers consider out-of-sign aspects. Say, Sun in the first degree of Cancer and Moon in the 29th degree of Sagittarius.
If I correctly understand the Hellenistic approach, the Luminaries in such a scenario wouldn't be considered in an opposition. That is, despite the fact that in modern astrology such a configuration would be called an 'out of sign opposition'. If we'll take this logic to it's conclusion, in Hellenistic the luminaries would be considered 'in aversion' - no aspect whatsoever.
What say you on this matter?


2) I sometimes experimentally use modern rulers (scorpio-pluto and such) in an otherwise traditional chart setting.
I do it not because I think that Pisces is ruled by Neptune (or the rest), but rather to give myself additional tools to examine the roles of outer planets in a given chart.
Say in a theoretical chart, where Pisces rules the 8th, Jupiter would rule the 8th, but when I'll be examining Neptune, I could tie him in with certain themes and topics (8th house themes and topics) in that given chart.
This proves to be rather useful, although I consider such an approach experimental and secondary.
Anyhow, I did wander if any of you do anything remotely similar?


3) I experimented with some clients, doing predictive work without employing transits whatsoever (maybe only in the back of my mind), and was surprised by the sturdiness and consistency of the results.
I employed instead such techniques (not all at once, but several): Profections, Firdaria, Secondary Progressions, Primary Directions, Distributions, Solar Arc Directions, and Zodiacal Releasing.
Wanted also to employ Solar Returns, but did not as I consider them a derivative of transits.
Did you ever try such an approach, and what were your results?

---

Don't feel obliged to reply to all three.
A reply to any of the points would be useful.

Dima Gur,

1) As far as I know/remember, the Hellenistic approach to houses can be primarily sign-based. Say, Sun in 5 degrees of Capricorn and Moon in 25 degrees of Taurus would be considered 'in a trine configuration' under such an approach.

The Hellenistic approach to houses was not based on the signs.
David Cochrane explains it this way:
Houses: Primary motion in paths parallel to the Celestial Equator
Zodiac Signs: Secondary motion in paths parallel the the Ecliptic Plane.
They are 2 different animals.
Thus, signs (a division by 12) is one of the many ways to divide the zodiac.
In your example, Sun at 275d and Moon at 55d
It is an applying quincunx by 10 degrees or 140 degrees ( a Septaseminovile as per Philip Graves)
In the 1st Harmonic, it is a Septaseminovile.
In the 3rd Harmonic, Moon is at 15 Vir and Sun is at 15 Can making a sextile.(1/6 of 1/3)
In the 6th Harmonic, Moon is at 0 Pis and Sun at 0 Sco making a trine. (1/3 of 1/6)
In the 9th Harmonic, Moon is at 15 Leo and Sun at 15 Aqu making an opposition (1/2 of 1/9)
Thus in Indian astrology in a Navamsa chart (9th division of a sign) which decides the strength of planets in a horoscope, you would have an opposition between Moon and Sun.
--------------
Now this being said, there are other ways to look at signs (division by 12)
- Looking ahead or casting rays
- Right or Left side.
- Sign, Bound or Face relationship
- Like-Engirding Signs (sharing the same ruler)
- Equally Ascending (equidistant from the equator)
- Equal Power (equidistant from the summer of winter solstices or Antiscia)
- Disjunct (not 'seeing' each other, like 2nd, 12th, 6th or 8th sign relationship)
--------------
In the 16th century, Kepler put the distance between planets above the signs positions. And if you find a planet at the midpoint of SU/MO (conj, opp, square), you can tell the real nature of whatever aspect you consider.
It will be more revealing than the aspect itself.

2) I sometimes experimentally use modern rulers (scorpio-pluto and such) in an otherwise traditional chart setting.

It makes sense, I do too. And not finding background evidence in Hellenistic astrology is like saying that cars cannot exist because they were never mentioned in older texts.

3) I experimented with some clients, doing predictive work without employing transits whatsoever (maybe only in the back of my mind), and was surprised by the sturdiness and consistency of the results.)

Yes, it's like looking at the hour in your predictive period. For the minutes and seconds, the transits will give you the finer details. Concentrating on the the exactness of the aspect, retrogrades, lunations with the other techniques you use can safely make you say 'Around that time'.

Best to you,
Ouranos

Dima Gur wrote:Hi everyone,

As I continue to practice astrology, I have a google keep note, with questions which get added from time to time.
Technical questions, doctrine questions, experiment methods of chart analysis, etc.
Here're a few, if you'll be kind and willing to participate in a discussion:


1) As far as I know/remember, the Hellenistic approach to houses can be primarily sign-based. Say, Sun in 5 degrees of Capricorn and Moon in 25 degrees of Taurus would be considered 'in a trine configuration' under such an approach.
This raises the question of what modern astrologers consider out-of-sign aspects. Say, Sun in the first degree of Cancer and Moon in the 29th degree of Sagittarius.
If I correctly understand the Hellenistic approach, the Luminaries in such a scenario wouldn't be considered in an opposition. That is, despite the fact that in modern astrology such a configuration would be called an 'out of sign opposition'. If we'll take this logic to it's conclusion, in Hellenistic the luminaries would be considered 'in aversion' - no aspect whatsoever.
What say you on this matter?


2) I sometimes experimentally use modern rulers (scorpio-pluto and such) in an otherwise traditional chart setting.
I do it not because I think that Pisces is ruled by Neptune (or the rest), but rather to give myself additional tools to examine the roles of outer planets in a given chart.
Say in a theoretical chart, where Pisces rules the 8th, Jupiter would rule the 8th, but when I'll be examining Neptune, I could tie him in with certain themes and topics (8th house themes and topics) in that given chart.
This proves to be rather useful, although I consider such an approach experimental and secondary.
Anyhow, I did wander if any of you do anything remotely similar?


3) I experimented with some clients, doing predictive work without employing transits whatsoever (maybe only in the back of my mind), and was surprised by the sturdiness and consistency of the results.
I employed instead such techniques (not all at once, but several): Profections, Firdaria, Secondary Progressions, Primary Directions, Distributions, Solar Arc Directions, and Zodiacal Releasing.
Wanted also to employ Solar Returns, but did not as I consider them a derivative of transits.
Did you ever try such an approach, and what were your results?

---

Don't feel obliged to reply to all three.
A reply to any of the points would be useful.

Interesting

Ouranos:
Thanks for your reply, as always very active in the forum.
About the first point, the explanation was interesting but may have lost you there at some point (am familiar with most of the data you've brought up, but wasn't sure about the connection to the main issue).
So you're saying that in Hellenistic Astro, the luminaries in such a position would still be considered in aspect?


Carl
Thanks for your interest
Which country are you from?

So you're saying that in Hellenistic Astro, the luminaries in such a position would still be considered in aspect?

In a way, when you look up at 2 planets, there is always an aspect or an angular distance as Kepler would put it, identified as a major, minor or unidentified aspect.
By the distance in your example between the Sun and the Moon, it has a quality of the 9th Harmonic or Novile series.

Michael Bergen says "The 9th Harmonic chart tends to show us the inner nature of a person."
http://www.astrologycode.org/20-the-9th-harmonic

Miss Emphatic Coach says
"Anyone who wants to know more about their true inner nature in the future should have a 9th harmonic chart done for them and explained in detail so they know where they are naturally headed in life."
https://seristawellness.wordpress.com/2 ... -harmonic/

David Hamblin says
"The 9th harmonic chart shows a person's capacity for joy and happiness"
The best example with a strong 9th Harmonic chart is Mozart.
Looking for happiness? Listen to Mozart.

A simplified way to look up at Harmonics is to consider only the conjunctions and oppositions in the Harmonic you are looking at.

Keywords for the Novile series (9th Harmonic):
encourages, give insights to, helps, synergizes, inspires, enlightens, flows harmoniously with.

This being said, the distance between 2 planets will resonate on a specific Harmonic level. Should you have a planet at the midpoint Sun/Moon, it will add to the picture.
And if you compare the 9th Harmonic between 2 people, you can tell the kind of relationship they will have together.
John Lennon and Paul McCartney have their ASC in conjunction in the 9th Harmonic. They inspired each other to the point that they melted their personalities together forming The Beatles (blend of beat +‎ beetles)

You can always merge the planets dignities and sign relationship but finding the Harmonic will give you a different outlook. And remember, Ptolemy when assessing a long-term relationship between 2 people considered the Sun and Moon. Period. To which we can add the ASC, the Part of Fortune (Moon) and the Part of Spirit (Sun). That's if you split the relationship between the Sun, Moon and ASC.

Best to you,
Ouranos

Ouranos
Well and true, but we're on the Traditional Techniques forum here ^^

I still wonder whether according to Hellenistic, such a configuration would be considered "an aversion", that is "no-aspect".

Here it is again:
Say, Sun in the first degree of Cancer and Moon in the 29th degree of Sagittarius.
If I correctly understand the Hellenistic approach, the Luminaries in such a scenario wouldn't be considered in an opposition. That is, despite the fact that in modern astrology such a configuration would be called an 'out of sign opposition'. If we'll take this logic to it's conclusion, in Hellenistic the luminaries would be considered 'in aversion' - no aspect whatsoever.

Sorry Dima Gur,
I get carried away sometimes and my brain is flying in all directions.

"The concept of aversion is partially based on the notion that there is a lack of affinity between the signs that the two planets are placed in. Such affinities normally take place through the three major qualities associated with the signs: quadruplicity, triplicity, and gender. Signs that are configured share at least one of these qualities, whereas signs that are in aversion share none of these qualities, and thus they are alienated from one another."
https://theastrologydictionary.com/a/aversion/

Aversion has this meaning, elements of different nature between signs.
But other factors have to be considered
Like a trine between Mars in Cancer (Detriment) to Moon in Scorpio (Fall). Is there some kind of an aversion here?
And sometimes signs in aversion can have a mutual reception like Mercury in Leo and Sun in Virgo.
Or in your example, the Moon in Sag is ruling the Sun in Cancer at the opposition. Somehow, it shows some kind of 'alienation' to whatever the Sun is ruling in the chart.

But priority should be given to the moiety or a planet 'casting a ray' towards another planet over the signs position.
Examples in a study by André Barbault where according to Hellenistic astrology, there is 'no aspect'. Yet, the aspect between the planets is clearly shown in the examples below.
* Georges Washington
Venus 29 Pisces - Saturn 2 Aries
His deep disappointed love of his eighteen years for a young girl of his entourage, and whose flame, poorly extinguished, slumbered in the depths of his heart until the end of his life.
** Honoré De Balzac
Sun at 29 Taurus (ruling his ASC) conjunct Jupiter at 6 Gemini.
A prolific and frenzied writer, weakening his precarious health by his excesses, in debt following hazardous investments and lavish excesses, fleeing his creditors under false names in different residences. In his foreword to La Comédie Humaine, his project was to identify the 'social species' of his time.
** Anne of Austria
Sun at 28 Virgo conjunct Jupiter at 1 Libra
Became not only Queen of France by marrying Louis XIII, she is, moreover, at the death of the latter (Jupiter ruling her VIII), invested in an unexpected way with all the powers over the kingdom by being the regent of a four-year-old child Louis XIV.

Say, Sun in the first degree of Cancer and Moon in the 29th degree of Sagittarius.
If I correctly understand the Hellenistic approach, the Luminaries in such a scenario wouldn't be considered in an opposition. That is, despite the fact that in modern astrology such a configuration would be called an 'out of sign opposition'. If we'll take this logic to it's conclusion, in Hellenistic the luminaries would be considered 'in aversion' - no aspect whatsoever.

Manilius, (2.305-340):

"And though a man compute a fourth sign from a fourth, the degrees in themselves will cause the wreck of a whole sign. It is therefore not enough to count trigons by signs or to expect a true square from signs at intervals at four".

No astrologer, of any age, would consider the Sun and Moon within 3° of opposition to not be in aspect with each other.

Thanks for the reference Deborah.
Aspects between planets are like pollution. Air pollution does not stop at national borders.

Deborah:
Thanks for the reference, and in such an early source as Manilius. Interesting.