Skyscript Astrology Forum

In the sidereal school of western astrology, what is the general consensus on how we define what is and what is not a "Grand Trine"?

Do we only consider planets or on a deeper level, important "points" like any of the critical thinks like Asc, IC, etc?... and what about the Moon's nodal axis? Nearly every chart I've ever seen always has the NN of the moon marked.

Your views and thoughts on this?

The "grand trine" is from tropical astrology. In general the Fagan school only pays attention to hard aspects, mainly when they contact the chart angles. There is little or no emphasis on the trines and sextiles. But today this may vary with individual astrologers. This is a good question to ask Jim Eshelman on the Solunars site if you are able to register.

Therese Hamilton wrote:The "grand trine" is from tropical astrology. In general the Fagan school only pays attention to hard aspects, mainly when they contact the chart angles. There is little or no emphasis on the trines and sextiles. But today this may vary with individual astrologers. This is a good question to ask Jim Eshelman on the Solunars site if you are able to register.

Thanks Therese,

I find it puzzling why they (Fagan school) don't give importance to grand trines, one could go so far as to say, they probably don't consider grand crosses either? I find that a case of
"choosing what we want to see, and downplaying what doesn't fit or too hard to decipher and fit into our theories."

Modern western astrology is plagued with this poisoned approach in my opinion.

The whole chart should be looked at for what it is, not what we want it to "look" like.

The way I see it, is too view the WHOLE chart and see it it for what it is.. nothing should be left out. We are the composite of all our "parts".

I wish there were more sidereal astrologers who allowed access to there online discussions. This is doing nothing but belittling the sidereal approach to western astrology.

I find it puzzling why they (Fagan school) don't give importance to grand trines, one could go so far as to say, they probably don't consider grand crosses either? I find that a case of
"choosing what we want to see, and downplaying what doesn't fit or too hard to decipher and fit into our theories."

RodJM wrote:

I wish there were more sidereal astrologers who allowed access to there online discussions. This is doing nothing but belittling the sidereal approach to western astrology.

I see that this topic has received a reply this week. I've been absent from Skyscript for awhile, but have been checking into Solunars. Rod, if you want to register at Solunars, I discovered that you have to go to Jim Eshelman's facebook page (it's public), and post a note that you are an astrologer and want to join Solunars.

That's what I did when there was no response to my registration. It turns out that Solunars receives hundreds of spam messages, and unless you notify Jim on facebook, he may never get around to responding to your registration. So first register at Solunars, then go to facebook and tell Jim you would like to have your registration activated. Give your registered name so he knows who you are.

jony33 wrote:I find it puzzling why they (Fagan school) don't give importance to grand trines, one could go so far as to say, they probably don't consider grand crosses either? I find that a case of "choosing what we want to see, and downplaying what doesn't fit or too hard to decipher and fit into our theories."

Hi Jony,

It's nice to see a new name here. It's true that 'grand trine' isn't in the Fagan school vocabulary. Astrologers of that school mainly pay attention to planets on the chart angles, and mostly they're concerned with ingress charts (based on the Fagan-Allen ayanamsa) and progressed solar returns. (called PSSRs). I think now the ayanamsa is just called the 'Allen' or 'Bradley' ayanamsa because he refined Fagan's value.

Fagan's western sidereal school has always been highly mathematical and technical, which is why it appeals to only a very small number of astrologers. I can't say that I have tested their favorite techniques and theories, so I have no opinion on how effective they are. But there are many examples on the Solunars forum. You don't have to be a Solunars member to read posts.

Astrologers of the Fagan school have always been dogmatic, being sure that they are right. Even in the early days they weren't easy to get along with as they were very opinionated. So they're a select and focused small group of technically oriented astrologers.