Skyscript Astrology Forum

what is the astro logic to them? i see some use them and their use appear very subjective to me..

what is the basis for them and why do they have 3 different kinds?

egyptian seems to be the most popular at the moment - flavour of the year, lol... not sure what the basis for this is..

chaldean ?

ptolemy?

thoughts?

i am in the book when ben dykes is encouraging their use.. no disrespect, but are astrologers following this purely based off past astrologers using these terms or bounds? is that it? thanks..

Hi James ... the 'bounds' are a minor essential dignity that have been around for a very long time; as far as I know, nobody has come up with a satisfactory explanation of how they were developed. They are often used in longevity techniques; the total number of bound degrees 'owned' by a planet add up to the planets greater years. They are in found in Dorotheus, Ptolemy, Firmicus, Valens, etc. nearly all the old texts. Personally I use the Egyptian terms but many people prefer to use Lilly's version of Ptolemy's version of the 'Chaldean' terms.

Here's a few links to articles that can explain them better than I can: Jenny Dusky Of the Disposition of the Terms and Tania Daniels The Ptolemic Bounds

Hi James...,
Speaking of bounds, when are you coming the bounds (beaches) of Malaysia...??? Hehe

what is the basis for them and why do they have 3 different kinds?

Because they have three different names...??? [terms, bounds, confines]...hahahaha

Seriously though, this is one of those things in astrology that the astro-logic just teasing me at the boundaries (see... bounds) but keeps slipping away from the confines of explanation... as if they work on their own terms that defy rationalization!

Speaking of astro-logic, for those who believe that astrology follows intelligible pattern (me included); we naturally would want to determine the logos behind the pattern so that we could make better predictions (I am just stating the obvious, I know...). For me, there are two groups of patterns that I look for:

1. The internal logic e.g. traditional astrology says that Sun rules Leo, Moon rules Cancer, et.al. But why? Well, we could start with the thema mundi, or Ptolemaic principles of natural alignment, bla bla. Here, we limit to the axioms/principles/laws of astrology itself and not its relations to human or mundane affairs (those fall into the second group below). What if we can find none of the astro-logic (like the distribution of the bounds) in the extant traditional texts? Then, we could: a) wait for some obscure texts to turn up and clear things for us OR b) try to find the rationalization to rediscover the pattern ourselves - Ptolemy did this to the terms! OR c) simply create our own astro-logic OR et. al. Whatever the case, we still have to decide whether to use it or not. For some people, they use it because somebody said so! For me, I would use it if it proves useful to a certain degree (like the bounds) for not all that are useful must be intelligible!!! - I mean, nobody has given the satisfactory answer (at least to me) as to the reason for why astrology works (or does not work), but I still find it useful!

2. The external logic: This is where the bulk of the astro-logos of interpretations are made of e.g. why luminaries rule parents, why planet that signifies money is good in its own domicile but the same planet signifying relationship is not good when it is in its own domicile, why the term rulers of parents signify societal class while triplicity rulers signify their life, bla bla. This is where most of the "astro-logic" are based on analogy, we find the analogues of human affairs or mundane affairs with the dance of the stars... AND... this is where the multitudes of opinions emerge as analogies are fluid...e.g. some say we can find the analogues of "rules of the world and life" with the rules of the stars ("as above so below") while others say that we can find analogues between the languages (the stars and humans speak different languages but one logos...), and so on and so forth...

For me, I have decided to use bounds/terms/confines based on utility... as I can't find satisfactory internal logic to them but I still require some degree of external logic when implementing them in my astro-corpus.

Some areas where I find bounds useful:
1. Longevity (confines/bounds of hyleg/predominator): I think (not that I know) this is the original intent for using the Egyptian bounds. It is said that, if we leave to the Sun, everybody shall have at least 120 years (or 108 years for moon) to live as luminaries are lights (read life) but the planets "confine" us to less - which is why the major numbers for the planets are all less than the luminaries'. The benefics confine less (82-Venus, 79-Jupiter), the malefics want to confine more (66-Mars, 57-Saturn) and Mercury somewhere in between (76). No luminaries exist in the Egyptian bounds/terms/confines distributions as luminaries are not "confines" by nature.
2. By analogy of language, terms/bounds are analogues of rules/laws. Now, laws could be natural laws (physics) or supra-natural (metaphysics) or human laws (nomos). Hence, when planets are in their own terms, they have free reign of dictating their own rules (nomos). If a planet is not in its own terms, then the planet is abiding by the rules (if in terms of benefics) or working "outside nomos" (if in terms of malefics).
3. Following (2) above, the term ruler of a planet describes the confines (read environment be it physical or societal) of the planet. For example, the term ruler of a planet that signifies a parent gives indication of the parent's societal class, the term ruler of a planet that signifies praxis gives indication of the surrounding people at work, the term ruler of a planet that signifies money gives indication of the lawfulness of money gained in life....etc.

Observe that I differentiate between "in its own term and term of others" and "term rulers" for the derivation of the analogues of meanings. I am being pedantic here because I find some astrologers who use the astro-logic of "in its own term and term of others" to the "term rulers" and vice versa; for me they should not be conflated.

Why, this is me being long-winded as usual... I could feel that my confines/bounds of life is getting shorter...hehe

PS: I want to response to your chart analyses in the other posts but I have done very little work with sidereal zodiac...

Have fun!

There are a great many variants of the terms. Perhaps the most exhaustive and up-to-date discussion of them (tabulating 11 versions), for those who read German, is found in Stephan Heilen's Hadriani genitura (2014), p. 718 ff. In English, there is Pingree's discussion in Yavanajātaka (1979), vol. 2, p. 211 ff. As shown by Alexander Jones and John Steele in this Open Access paper (2012), the terms are of Babylonian (and therefore sidereal) origin; the version found in cuneiform sources is close to the so-called Egyptian terms, which were the standard system throughout Late Antiquity and the medieval period. Steele later published a second paper (2015), but this is behind a paywall.

jane, astrojin and martin

thanks for your kind, entertaining and educational responses to my question here.. i appreciate that.. it's what makes skyscript a great place for a student of astrology, or a teacher, for the input one gets like this.

it baffles me what the logic is to the terms or bounds.. it gets further complicated with the fact that there is really no crossover in any of it from sidereal to tropical or vice versa... perhaps it is another example of my own crisis in faith over astrology, although i do believe there is much to be gained from astrology, this corner of astrology is so deep in the past, that no one can explain the basis for the 'astrologic' of terms or bounds although i admire astrojjins gallant attempts here!

i often make parallels between music and astrology.. with music, composers are essentially working with harmony, rhythm and melody within all the rules of music which can be broken, if need be - to make a creative work of art.. as a consequence, there are many different styles and approaches to music composition from pop to classical and everything inbetween.. in astrology i feel it is much the same.. different astrologers focus on different elements of astrology for use in understanding something in this parallel universe we call astrology.. some astrologers use certain parts of astrology for different purposes and come up with analysis or predictions on the future or observations on the past that they believe have a certain astrologic to them.. others decide on the merits as they see fit..

at the same time there is a huge element of subjectivity to all of it ( excepting horary maybe) - lets call it the creative aspect of the art of astrology, to the degree that the conclusions gotten off the various astrological techniques appear valid, or forced, or everything inbetween these 2 positions..

some use terms and bounds.... in this ben dykes book i am reading at the moment - Persian Nativities IV: On the Revolutions of the Years of Nativities, i am reading about distributions.. i had read the previous 3 books which were latin interpretations, but this one is done in arabic... i am going over the section on time lords... the profection lord is the first and what sounds like the most significant time lord of the lot, but now in this section on distributions - he is going into how these terms or bounds play an important role in releasing the contents of various other astro techniques for predictions that are used - directly the ascendant - primary directions i take it - thru the bounds and how the bounds play a particular rule in all of this... i am having a hard time believing it because i don't understand the basis for the logic of the terms/bounds... and to further complicate it i see people using tropical and sidereal which gives completely different terms/bounds, not just the 3 terms/bounds that one can toy with - egyptian.chaldean and ptolemy!

but here is a thought that i have which perhaps someone will put to rest... this quote from astrojin is relevant " if we leave to the Sun, everybody shall have at least 120 years (or 108 years for moon) to live as luminaries are lights (read life)"

i continue to explore and use the dasa system of india which is also an important - perhaps a very important timing device which seems to operate in a similar manner to the terms/bounds, but differently... it is a 120 year cycle gotten off a complicated mathematical arrangement from the position of the moon at one's birth.. each planet, including the sun and moon, have a period and they also contain subperiods mixed with the various other planets too.. was this an attempt on the part of indian astrology to come up with a system that was a timing device in a similar manner to terms/bounds, but obviously different too? it seems to operate much like this concept of distribution very similar to how the emphasis on terms/bounds operates, but obviously differently... again - it seems very arbitrary to me, but there is a type of logic that i can intuitively understand better... perhaps martin can comment?

thanks so much everyone!

Hi James

perhaps it is another example of my own crisis in faith over astrology, although i do believe there is much to be gained from astrology, this corner of astrology is so deep in the past,

It seems my last post might have come across as me staunchly defending the esoteric terms/bounds/confines, but let me set the record straight—I wasn’t so much defending as I was, let’s say, playfully navigating through the cosmic verbiage, trying to make sense of it all. Deep down in my heart, I harbor this strong suspicion that perhaps, just perhaps, some things are more "wrong" than "right".

It’s not so much a crisis of faith for me; it’s more like I’m standing at the crossroads of skepticism and wonder, holding a broken wheel of fortune. There are moments when I feel like a cosmic conjurer when my predictions hit the mark. I can’t help but wonder if it’s sheer coincidence, or if I’ve tapped into some universal pattern, a secret rhythm of the cosmos that I can decode and use to predict future celestial alignments. Of course, this revelation usually strikes me after the fact, which makes me think it’s all a bit of clever hindsight rather than foresight.

And then there are those times when my predictions go spectacularly awry, and I find solace in the thought that perhaps astrology, with all its mystique, is also brimming with errors and misguided assumptions. (It’s not a reflection of my intelligence, I assure you ...hahaha)

The quest to find universal patterns is an objective one, yet the outcomes in astrology are as subjective as they come. The moment I realized that astrology is about drawing analogies, the waters of subjectivity became even murkier.

Nonetheless, the very act of sifting through these subjective patterns, as whimsical as they may seem, is a delightful exercise for the brain, if not for astrology itself!

Cheerio!

Hello...yet again James...

Forgot to include some links that might be useful?
Have you seen the discussion on terms in Kepler College on youtube - uploaded about 2 weeks ago?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrSpAF1WXz0
ehhh... I didn't find it enlightening... though I must admit I was just skimming through the video...

There are also a couple of old discussions in altair astrology on:
Vimshottari dasha and the logic of the numbers:
https://altairastrology.wordpress.com/c ... tari-dasa/
and also a discussion of profection, varshaphala and terms:
https://altairastrology.wordpress.com/2 ... rofection/
Don't know whether these are useful for your analysis? Martin would definitely be helpful in these...

Thanx!

astrojin

that is very well said.. thank you..i think some astrological ideas are lost in time.. astrologers can try out these ideas, but if one is unable to understand or explain the basis for them, it seems like it is more an exercise in faith, as opposed to deep understanding of the tools being used.. of course ben dykes has to go over all this because at the time abu mashar was working with this concept of distribution... in fact ben dykes implies that abu mashar uses so many techniques, he is not sure just exactly what his approach was, or - maybe that it changed over the course of his life, which is also entirely possible and probable..

i thought about the idea of the fideria - maybe i am spelling it wrong - ben dykes uses the terms fardar, and firdariyyqah in the glossary at the back of his book - and how this seems to have some parallels with the indian dasa system... again - all conjecture on my part as i don't recall anyone discussing these parallels, or if there are any..

thanks for the links astrojin.. i will take a look..

cheers
james

i see the last link discusses what i have read in K S Charaka’s book ‘Predictive Techniques in Varshaphala’ - yes, i have read this idea too which is another variation on a theme to do with time lords, but just for the year...

the link on Vimshottari dasha and the logic of the numbers is interesting... i will have to consider that more... i am not sure about the persons logic for getting at those lengths of time for the different planets...

the first link i am listening to now.. i generally hate that type of format because so much of it is superfluous to my interest.. if they put it out in a transcript format, i would reconsider it.. thanks regardless for all of it!

astrojin

i spent some time on that video you shared.. i didn't find it enlightening either... i find astrologers are very good at rationalizing their use of a particular technique in some sort of circular logic type way, but ultimately i am unconvinced... well, that is how i felt watching a good chunk of that video... she's a very good talker and has a self assured air about her, but it was still unconvincing her use of the terms/bounds and her views on all of that..

i just read this morning an article by anthony louis on robert zoller.. i enjoyed the article..
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2024/04 ... n-planets/

this is the paragraph inside the article that i found of interest -
"Morinus, who had such a profound influence on Zoller’s thinking, discarded much of traditional astrology as superstitious nonsense. Morin rid his astrology of decans, faces, terms, traditional triplicity rulers (he developed his own system), profections (annual, monthly and daily), and the use of universal signifiers as particular indicators in charts. Zoller, in contrast, worked hard to retrieve and restore what Morinus had thrown in the garbage. Morin, of course, was unaware of the outer planets. Most likely he would have incorporated them into his astrology, probably in the same way he used fixed stars, if he found empirical evidence of their effectiveness."

maybe it is the nature of astrologers to have to consider all the different options one has to gain greater insight off an astrology chart, and to consider what astrologers down thru the centuries have used to arrive at these insights with different methods.. but we also have to decide to omit some of it too.. i got a kick out of reading what morin decided to put on the chopping block! he's a man after my own heart, lol! some might enjoy anthonys article..

For those who want to understand Morin properly (like his contemporary Placidus, he adds as much as he throws out), this thread may be of interest.

thanks martin! what a coincidence.. i see penelope posted this a few hours after i posted this link from anthony louis... perhaps anthony was aware of this too..

perhaps others are aware of a book that patti tobin brittain wrote in 1980 called 'planetary powers - the morin method'... i am curious to know what penelope sitter has added to the conversation..

https://www.wessexastrologer.com/why-we ... pe-sitter/

James,

i spent some time on that video you shared.. i didn't find it enlightening either... i find astrologers are very good at rationalizing their use of a particular technique in some sort of circular logic type way, but ultimately i am unconvinced... well, that is how i felt watching a good chunk of that video... she's a very good talker and has a self assured air about her, but it was still unconvincing her use of the terms/bounds and her views on all of that..

Yeah..., and I find it rather jarring that people simply take an ancient technique and use it with chart examples to validate their claims but then they:
1. use the the technique in a way that none of the ancients used it
2. use modern psychological interpretation so that you can never get wrong prediction because you simply don't make one!
and, not to mention, the trivial pursuit of "proving" anything using a carefully selected handful charts...

i just read this morning an article by anthony louis on robert zoller.. i enjoyed the article..
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2024/04 ... n-planets/

Thanx for the link. I have two qualms with Morin:
1. He is trying to make astrology valid by fitting the science of his time into the framework of astrology (even though some of his beliefs were dead wrong e.g. he was a firm believer of the fixity of earth; a staunch opponent of Galileo). While this is OK for new things that the ancients did not know e.g. outer planets but revising the framework of traditional/ancient astrology (that was based on certain ancient framework) into current understanding of the universe... well
2. While creating his own schemes for those things he found useful but whose basis eluded him (e.g. triplicity rulers), he simply put others that he probably did not understand much onto the chopping block thinking they were the "fantastic creations of the Arabs" e.g. terms, Lots, etc. Robert Zoller knew better though...

Cheerio!