Is there a good source or reference on the Lunation Cycle in Traditional Astrology? I know that Dane Rudhyar has a book that is widely well-regarded in more modern circles, but was curious if anyone could suggest a good book in the Tradition. Or another good place to start learning about this concept in more detail.

Thanks.

JPskyman wrote:Is there a good source or reference on the Lunation Cycle in Traditional Astrology? I know that Dane Rudhyar has a book that is widely well-regarded in more modern circles, but was curious if anyone could suggest a good book in the Tradition. Or another good place to start learning about this concept in more detail.

Thanks.

Yes, there is.

A very good text to begin with
http://www.astrologiahumana.com/moon%20 ... tional.pdf

The entire Anthology by Vettius Valens for free
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vet ... entire.pdf

Regards,
Goran

Goran,

Thanks so much for the reply and the great links and information! This is a great start--really, even better than I had hoped for.

Also, I book-marked your website and look forward to exploring it, too.

Thanks again!

JP

hi goran,

thanks for the first link on the phases of the moon which quotes valens and etc.. i like how it got divided up in general by 45 degree segments..

"
?The second Double-Convex(225?) gives signs for
being abroad and greater actions and for
happiness. And Zeus is equipotent to the god and lord until the 25th day of the Moon.?

?The second Half (270?) gives signs for old matters and ailments of long duration and for
children. Then Kronos is equipotent until the 30th comes about.?"

it is interesting as a direct association being made here with planets and moon phase which one could conceivably draw a connection to house positions as well.. if one were to use solar houses, or to think of solar houses as another way to think of the moon phase the last half of the 8th and 9th house are given this description of ''zues is equipotent to the god and lord".. the section that is equivalent to last quarter - solar 10th house essentially - ''then kronos is equipotent until the 30th day comes about.'

to me, it is a clear connection between moon phases and planets that one can easily see mirrors some of the ideas associated with house systems, not to mention a focus on a degree relationship or aspect - the 45 - which is generally ignored by traditional astrologers heavily focused on only ptolemiac aspects...

thanks for sharing the pdf.. is that a free ben dykes pdf?

not to mention a focus on a degree relationship or aspect - the 45 - which is generally ignored by traditional astrologers heavily focused on only ptolemiac aspects...

Aspects are entirely sign-based and therefore have nothing to do with the lunar cycle and its different phases.


Goran

goran,

why did they divide it up into 45 segments and make direct connections with planets then?

cheers james

james_m wrote:goran,

why did they divide it up into 45 segments and make direct connections with planets then?

cheers james

They divided the lunar cycle in such segments, because the Moon's appearance changes considerably at those points of her relationship with the Sun. The planets are said to be assisting in these phases, along with the rulers of the phases. As you've probably noted, there's also an 15 degree segment, I wonder which "aspect" might that represent?

Why do you think this should have anything to do with the signs and the aspectual relationships formed between them as described in all the classical sources?

Furthermore, Mercury assists in the first eight days i.e during two phases, what about that repetition? Why is Saturn's influence also duplicated in the end phase of the cycle?

Interesting points to ponder upon...


Goran

goran,

i don't buy the first sentence in your response here. the moons appearance is changing constantly over the course of a month. clearly new moon, full moon, first and last quarter are obvious points in the cycle that can be picked up with the naked eye( excluding new moon of course).

the rationale you offer for the 45 degree segments makes less sense to me then that a consideration of the half way point between the phases i have already given here (new moon- 0, fq- 90, fm- 180,lq- 270) were also considered important turning points in the sun/moon relationship. it also suggests, (not written down for those who only follow the letter of everything) that the midpoint between these hard aspects was considered an important turning point.. now perhaps some of the traditional astrologers could be forgiven for not including keplers desire to include the 45 or 135 aspect, but it is obvious valens included something very similar in his description on the phases of the moon..

as for the 12 degree distance, i can quote lilly for you, lol.
"A Planet within 12 degrees of the Sun, is said to be under his Beames, and then hath not fortitude." it is applied here for the new moon and full moon, but i have no special insight into why it would also be applied to the full moon phase...

as for mercury ruling the first 2 sections of 12, or 15 degrees to 90 degrees - here is the quote from the pdf (The ?Rising Light?, 12 or 15? until 45, has the lord of its sign (or perhaps even the bound lord) AND Mercury.
The First Crescent, 45? until 90, has the lord of its sign AND Mercury. )

it appears there are only so many planets to give a connection to these phases.. after the moon is out of being combust the sun it goes to mercury until the first 1/4.. then venus til the 135 degree angle.. then the sun rules from 135 to full moon.. fm to 192 rulership is given to the sign the moon falls in.. 192 to 225 connects with mars.. 225 to 270, or last quarter is ruled by jupiter...

the reason saturn gets to rule over 2 sections of the sun/moon phase may have something to do with the fact saturn rules 2 signs - capricorn and aquarius as well.. the symbology seems fitting, with the last 15 or 12 degrees prior to the new moon ruled by the sign the moon lands in as well. as you can see in the pdf file it is a bit loosey goosey on the final phase and just when it starts... interesting they can be loose about that, but are very clear on the 45 degree segments otherwise...

here is another thought i have, but this is coming out of my imagination and you won't read about it in a book.. there may have been some secrecy around revealing the knowledge and wisdom contained in astrology.. one may have had to have gone thru an initiation process to receive this info... they may have used techniques in astrology that have remained secret and one is not going to read in some ben dykes translation or project hindsight dispatch... that i think is really worth pondering especially for anyone who seems to follow only what is written down in a re released ancient historical book from the past 30 years..

maybe you will find some of this worth pondering too goran.

cheers james

cor scorpii wrote: They divided the lunar cycle in such segments, because the Moon's appearance changes considerably at those points of her relationship with the Sun. The planets are said to be assisting in these phases, along with the rulers of the phases. As you've probably noted, there's also an 15 degree segment, I wonder which "aspect" might that represent?

Why do you think this should have anything to do with the signs and the aspectual relationships formed between them as described in all the classical sources?

Furthermore, Mercury assists in the first eight days i.e during two phases, what about that repetition? Why is Saturn's influence also duplicated in the end phase of the cycle?

Interesting points to ponder upon...


Goran

I don't feel the need to ponder upon these at all, James - trust me

You can "buy"(or not!) anything you want, that doesn't bother me

There's no need to quote Lilly, I know what he says (pretty much the same as everybody before him) - you obviously didn't quite understand what I was getting at, but never mind, your constant questions regarding the concepts of classical astrology speak for themselves

the reason saturn gets to rule over 2 sections of the sun/moon phase may have something to do with the fact saturn rules 2 signs - capricorn and aquarius as well

Really? Don't all the other planets, except for the Moon/Sun, do the same?

Your desire to fix something that isn't broken (and what you clearly don't understand well enough) and prove the classical astrology in desperate need of a thorough transformation just because it's thousands of years old is obvious. As well as the constant urge to ridicule it. But I'm not going to be a part of the game, spending my time arguing pointlessly because...there can be no real understanding between us, no matter what I say. You are determined to "prove" the classical astrology is full of faults, and that's where it all ends.

I think my time is much better spent in reading the wonderful books I have and putting the rules to the test - in this forum as well. I've already seen them working remarkably well time and time again, and that's my greatest satisfaction. The times when I felt the need to justify and defend them are in the process of dieing out, and it's a very good feeling of relaxation and freedom

As for Kepler, he was too much of an mathematician to understand what astrology really is. Your thinking is scientific in the "modern" meaning of the word, and that amounts to pretty much the same. That's why you like his "minor aspects".

For my own part, I'm perfectly satisfied to be blind and dumb, following the idiotic ancient rules to the letter
I guess you're just much "higher developed" than I am and there's no help to it.
Poor me...

However, I'll gladly remain in my state of utter spiritual unconsciousness and slavish idiocy, first trying to apprehend (with my poor understanding) how the blatantly stupid/unenlightened ancients conceived astrology in such a distorted way, before I try to "reform" it in every single letter.

Gosh, how I envy you evolved, conscious souls who don't allow themselves to be enslaved, who think with their own head! In that sense:

here is another thought i have, but this is coming out of my imagination and you won't read about it in a book.. there may have been some secrecy around revealing the knowledge and wisdom contained in astrology.. one may have had to have gone thru an initiation process to receive this info... they may have used techniques in astrology that have remained secret and one is not going to read in some ben dykes translation or project hindsight dispatch... that i think is really worth pondering especially for anyone who seems to follow only what is written down in a re released ancient historical book from the past 30 years..

Now this is a gem worth billions of dollars - how enlightening!
Trust me, I have never come even close to such a profound, wise thought. Oh thank you, thank you, thank you!

BTW, you seem to be able to follow something that isn't written down? How do you manage that? Is it your imagination?


Now seriously, perhaps you'll find some help in this text http://www.qhdc.org/barclay/exeter.htm

Goran

Goran, I think most members would consider you one of our most valued contributors (I certainly do), especially for the way that you regularly take the time to contribute to chart discussions and share your views with others. I'm glad that you are starting to feel a sense of relaxation through the confidence you have in knowing that your understanding of astrology is at a stage where it is secure and serves you well. Sometimes it is much more helpful to just offer our views and let them be taken up or rejected by others, or discussed and debated freely, without any sense of needing to defend and argue endlessly.
Unfortunately you do then take quite a sarcastic attitude towards James, who hasn't really done anything to warrant that. This won't be much of a discussion forum if astrologers with differing views hesitate to post for fear of getting scornful responses. Let's not imply that idiocy is suggested by disagreement on principles that are being explored, or make the discussion personal rather than theoretical. I'm sure you were joking and responding tongue-in-cheek, but it still leaves implications that James is on an agenda to disprove something, when it looks to me like his interest is in trying to understand something that is currently not very well established and worth developing into a fruitful discussion.

Of course, that applies to everyone, myself included - so: more thoughts anyone?

Thank you Deb for your encouraging words. They're of an enormous value for a student like me

Now to this discussion - the reason I reacted like this lies also in my (secondary) choleric temperament.

However, this discussion is certainly not the only instance james has tried to (subtly?) ridicule classical astrology/it's principles, and hence, all of those who try to understand/apply it in its own right, without the constant need for "fixing" and reinventing it.

There's not much more to be said about this, at least not from my own part. If james is really eager to learn classical astrology, there are more than enough books to read/study, and then, if he doesn't really understand something, fruitful discussion may ensue on this wonderful forum.

However, based on what I've seen so far, I highly doubt it's his genuine wish to learn. If it nevertheless is, he might want to reconsider his approach/attitude - I don't think it's appropriate.

Regards,

Goran

hi there,

first off here's another link to a nice article on the lunation cycle from a more traditional pov..
http://www.allthingshealing.com/Astrolo ... d0A0qwSROQ

deb,

thanks for reading my intent correctly. astrology must be more then following a set of rules. being able to see beyond the words on a page and intuit must help. astrology isn't going to produce much of anything worthwhile without that going on as i see it.

goran,

i'm sorry you appear so easily offended by my approach or communication style. that's the only way i can understand your response here. the way i see it everyone processes information differently. i regularly challenge everything i read or am told.. i've done this my whole life with astrology - traditional/modern - it doesn't matter. and, i find these categories irksome the way some from one school clobber others from another tells me more about human nature then it does about astrology. quickly dismissing astrologers who've devoted their life to astrology (lee lehman or ivy goldstein jacobson on a recent horary thread) if they aren't taking the "correct approach" to a particular style of astrology is something i also have a hard time understanding. i can understand a person being devoted to a particular approach. perhaps this partly explains your position and response on that thread.

valens description of the lunation cycle with the cycle being broken down into 45 degree sections is either something someone follows or not. do you use it and if so how? does it have some relevance to you? i immediately see my own past astro research from doing uranian type astrology being reflected in the work of valens over his emphasis of this mathematical breakdown on the lunation cycle!