Understanding Astrological Charts

[dadsnook2000]

This for those on the list who sincerely wish to know more about astrological charts and what they may actually be seeing and doing when working with them.

Go to Debora Houlding's site at http://skyscript.co.uk/

Go the the forum tab at the top of the page.

Look for Philosophy & Science

Under that section look for the thread "The Standard Astrological Chart."

Much of the meat of this truly impressive set of writings is from Juan Revilla of Costa Rica, a most profound thinker and astronomical mathematician. He also has created Riyal software which is a freeware program that I use for my work with cyclic astrology.

He and others talk about just what an astrological chart is, what it seems to represent, as well as how it does not show what many think it may show. If you can get through it all, your astrological education may jump many levels forward. It is interesting, and it casts doubts on how most use astrology. Dave
PS: I'm not expecting many comments on this. But it should blow your mind.

 

[Minderwiz]

Thanks for the link Dave and I agree that this is a good thread to read. I know you've aimed the thread at beginners but I'd like to make a couple of observations which might help amplify a couple of the points made in the thread.

One of the first things an Astrology student learns (or should learn) is that the horoscopic chart is a two dimensional representation of the sky for a particular point in time. Whether they actually understand the meaning of that is of course one of the issues raised. Any two dimensional representation of a three dimensional reality is bound, ipso facto, to be a distortion - take a look at a two dimensional map of the world, or even a country, using a Mercator projection and you will see that the three dimensional reality actually appears significantly different, from the map - which does not invalidate the use of maps LOL

It's also obviously true that there are things in a chart which just don't exist in the same physical reality - the four angles and house cusps are an Astrologer imposed framework, as is the Zodiac, whether tropical or sidereal or the constellations, That of course does not mean they do not have existence or relevance - it is a human trait to impose order and meaning on apparent chaos and that imposition of order on chaos is at the basis of divination.

I know you constantly draw up charts for all manner of things, as do I. We probably have a common view of the nativity as being one, but not the only point in life for which a chart should be drawn up. Indeed in both classical and modern times it has been common to draw up charts for pre-birth moments, such as preceding lunations and conception, as well as events during life. A traditional justification for the pre-eminence of the natal chart is that it marks the entry of a soul into a physical incarnation (or at least a physically independent incarnation) - take away the belief in the soul and it's no more or no less than any other chart, it shows a slice of life.

On the three dimensional issue you might find Marten Gansten's book on Primary Directions interesting, because the three dimensional reality versus the two dimensional chart is a key issue both for modern users and indeed as far back as Hellenistic times. As Juan says, a longitudinal cojunction can involve a significant separation - consider a conjunction of Sun and Moon (A New Moon). If the two dimensional chart faithfully reflected physical reality, we would have a solar eclipse every new Moon. The reality is that we don not - Sun and Moon are laterally separated by a significant amout and if the New Moon occurs during daylight hours at our location, we can't see the Moon at all and have an unrestricted view of the Sun (assuming it's not cloudy LOL)

The same issue applies to aspects - are they simply two dimensional or three dimensional - something that is important in looking at Primaries.

BTW Gansten also uses a Sidereal Zodiac - although he mentions it in his introduction (He uses Krishnamurti) he often provides examples of sidereal charts but then has to convert them to tropical to do the necessary maths.

I think you might find his book very interesting, given this thread and the Skyscript discussion.

PS Whilst Primary Directions were the key part of the traditional approach to forecasting they are actually used by many modern Astrologers, and there is no practical reason why the outer planets or any other solar system object, or even chart points should not be directed, not any practical reason why planets and points cannot be conversely directed.

 

[dadsnook2000]

Converse charting

Hello, Minderwiz. It's interesting that your post mentioned converse charting. I did quite a bit of this some twelve years ago, mostly involving criminals who were executed. Using their execution date and time as a birth chart, I did converse solar returns for the period covering their crimes, then progressed their charts forward to the day of the crime---and found a good astrological picture of that event. I then did the same going backward and getting a chart for their birthdate----and found that chart depicted their character and attitudes relating to their crime.

I don't have any of those chart files now, but it certainly showed that time works backwards as well as it does forwards. Now, if only we really could go back in time and choose different directions --- but that wouldn't be life or karma, would it? Dave

 

[sapienza]

Thanks for the link Dave. I read the discussion and did find it absolutely fascinating. I'd like to have a think on it for awhile and, when I have some time, read through it again.

One thing though, the idea of casting chats for birth and death sounds interesting. So what stops us from just casting a chart for any moment in our life, as opposed to looking at transits TO our natal chart? I'm very much a novice so apologies if this is a silly question.

Edited to add...

So, does this mean Astrology is a map of the (collective) human mind rather than a map of the heavens?

 

[dadsnook2000]

For sapienza

Astrologers tend to think of "astrology" as being charts---a model that gives a combination of both physical and abstract factors for consideration. Really, astrology is a complexity of overlapping cycles. We choose to draw a chart of our view of some of those cycles plus other things that enable us to visualize them in some sort of logical construct (houses, angles, zodiacs).

If we think of people as resonating with several primary cycles and many more minor or sub-cycles, then we can have a chart for certain points where those cycles intersect and find that we have captured the essence of that person. The trick is in identifying those cycles, knowing how to find them at some other point in time and space, having the tools to "chart" them, and having the skills to read them.

Your birth chart captures a static relationship of many of these cycles. Do you "see" those cycles in the chart? You probably see planets in signs and houses and in aspectual relationships, but you probably don't see them as being part of a moving, changing complexity of cycles. Even if you know the planets move, you probably haven't trained yourself to see them as moving cycles.

Those who follow my posts over time will remember that I often cite the Sun and Moon phase relationships, or the Saturn-Jupiter phase relationships. The resources section of this Astrology Forum have very many essays which I have placed there explaining planet cycles. I see a chart as representing a person who chose to be born with a certain Sun-Moon cyclic relationship and I understand the broad meanings of that cycle. I also see or look for several other broad, common cycles. I attempt to view "time".

** Any conjunction starts a cyclic relationship.
** Any planet returning to its natal position at any time in the future is reestablishing its cycle.
** Any point at hard angles to the start of a cycle (a square, opposition, semi-square or square-and-a-half) marks a point on that cycle.
** Any reestablished point such as Sun-degrees-to-Moon can be the anchor point in a cycle, and any return to it affirms that cycle.

Since cycles extend forward and backwards from any point in time and location, then we can follow those cycles as long as we know what points on those cycles are important. It's like looking for someone at a train station. There are thousands of people coming and going, but if we know what train they are on and what stop they will choose to show up at, it becomes very easy to find them.

You can use progressions, converse transits, or (as I do) Solar Returns and inbetween daily charts, moving forward and backward. It requires being familiar with the math and knowing what each type of chart means and how to interpret it. You don't treat every chart as if it was a natal chart. And you follow the cycles. It is easier and more simple than it sounds. Dave

 

[sapienza]

Thanks for your reply Dave. I'll have to take your word for it being easier and more simple than it sounds. But it certainly does make sense. I think after reading the discussion on the Skyscript forum, and the posts here I'm going to need some time to let it sink in. Definitely interesting though and I'm looking forward to exploring it more.

Thank you

 

[Minderwiz]

One thing though, the idea of casting chats for birth and death sounds interesting. So what stops us from just casting a chart for any moment in our life, as opposed to looking at transits TO our natal chart? I'm very much a novice so apologies if this is a silly question.

Edited to add...

So, does this mean Astrology is a map of the (collective) human mind rather than a map of the heavens?

Nothing stops us casting charts for any time (and place) we want, However:

There is no reason at all why any old chart should be significant (in terms of my life). I could spend the day casting charts every 5 minutes, but I might not find anything meaningful in them.

That suggests that we ought to cast charts for times which did or will have a significance - I could cast a chart for the day, time and place that I was (or will be) married, or when I went into hospital, or when I got the new job, etc. So there not only needs to be a chart but also a meaning (for me) - I'll modify that comment a little later when I take up Dave's cycles.

ALL charts of the sky ARE transits. They map (in 2D) the transit of planets across the sky at one point in time and place. My natal chart is a transit chart, my solar return is a transit chart. Progressed or directed charts are not charts of the sky so are not transits. When Astrologers talk about transiting planets they do so in two senses (though the sense is often implied rather than made specific). Both senses take the zodiacal position of a planet at a particular point in time. In the first sense it js positioned by House according to the moment in time AND the place of that transit. In the second it's zodiacal position is placed by House according to a previous chart, for example the current position of Venus relative to my natal chart. It is a mistake to see transits solely in terms of the second sense. But the second sense does allow me to decide whether the chart for the current time and place has relevance to me, or perhaps, more importantly whether a chart for a future time may have relevance, or to search for future charts of times and places to see if they have any significance of meaning to me.

Dave makes very valid points about the cyclical nature of Astrology and he is right to point out that we should not be sidetracked by the static nature of our charts - anyone who has used the dynamic chart features of a software program gets quite a shock the first time they did it - the chart appears alive because it, or rather the cosmos IS alive. We should taken note, if only in passing of the cyclical relationship of our charts. The return charts provide one of the modifications to my point about relevance. We take return charts as having relevance and meaning to our lives over the coming period (one year if it's a solar return).

Yes Dave does keep harping on about phase relationships LOL but with good reason.

The phase relationship of Sun and Moon is THE driving force of Astrology, over it's history. From earliest times we hav calendars dependent on that cycle and a search of the sky by Astronomer/Astrologer/Priests for the first sight of the first crescent Moon or the last glimpse of the fourth quarter Moon. The Lunation cycle is still of premier importance to modern Astrologers.

The traditional use of 'oriental' and 'occidental' is nothing more than the phase relationship of a planet to the Sun, and the Jupiter/Saturn phase relationship has a long history as a measure of time and meaning fur mundane issues. So it is good for Dave to remind us about the importance of cycles in modern Astrology. One pf the things that Dave might add is the relative importance of phase relationships - I assume (possibly very dangerously) that Dave doesn't consider all phase relationships to be equally relevant or meaningful even if they relate to different aspects of life.

Before I take up Dave's comment on converse directions/progressions I have another comment on the 2D/3D issue. A (2D) chart does give us 3D information when it comes to the Moon's phases. By charting the Moon's nodes we can 'see' it's latitude compared to ecliptic and thus have a good idea of whether a New Moon or Full Moon will be associated with an eclipse. In principle there's nothing to stop us charting the nodes of all the other planets for a similar visual reminder but as these nodes are static for very long periods, it's usual to simply give latitudes and declinations in a separate table.

This leads me to mention another cycle, which is not a phase relationship but is the cycle of a planet relative to it's nodes, which takes it from its maximum 'northerly' point relative to the ecliptic to its maximum southerly point (the nodes being where it is on the ecliptic). This gives us another two points we might consider - the 'bendings' where the planet reaches its extreme northerly or southerly latitude and then changes direction. I don't know of any modern Astrologers who use this cycle (Dave probably does) but this cycle of the Moon was used in the past. There is a clear analogy here to the Sun's cycle relative to the Earth and it's equinoxes (analogous to the nodes) and solstices (analogous to the bendings)

I found Dave's comments on his use of converse charting very intriguing but I just want to make a clarification point for other readers. Dave uses the term in its modern sense - reversing the flow of time. In the case of Primary Directions this is changing the rotation of Earth, so that the Sun (and all other planets and points) moves from West to East, rather than East to West - the sort of thing Superman did in the first of the Christopher Reeve movies.

You will find reference to converse directions in traditional texts, but when Lilly refers to a converse direction he does not mean it in Dave's sense. A Primary Direction is taking a 'significator' to a 'Promissor'. by the natural diurnal motion. The position of the promissor is fixed (at it's position at birth) the significator continues it's natural transit till it reaches the point of the promissor (or an aspect to it), for example the Sun being carried (by diurnal motion) to the natal position of a promissor, say the natal position of Jupiter.

For Lilly and other traditional Astrologers, a converse direction took the promissor to the significator but again in natural diurnal motion - for example Jupiter in the second House at birth being moved to the natal position of the Sun in the first. For the tradition the flow of time is always forward. Einstein's point about time being relative opens up an interesting philosophical issue about the validity of time flowing backwards and thus a validity for the modern use of 'converse'.

 

[dadsnook2000]

The Moon's very own zodiac

In line with cyclic astrological practices, a small side issue is the lack of use by astrologers of tracking the Moon relative to the Draconic Zodiac. This zodiac is based on the Moon's north node, its very own Aries point. Do we look at a natal chart in terms of its Draconic Zodiac for the Moon's position, do we do a Lunar Return using the Draconic Zodiac.

And in terms of attempting to visualize a 3-D view of our Earth and the surrounding solar system, do we consider the ecliptic of the Sun and the ecliptic of the Moon, their intersection or any other factors? This is beyond the average present capabilities of much of the list members, but thinking about such things can take us beyond our present practices and enlarge our view of what we may may become as astrologers.

I would suggest that everyone should have the vision of moving beyond natal chart astrology at some point when they are ready for it. Following and being part of these discussions is part of that visualization process. Be curious. Dave

 

[Minderwiz]

I think it's wise to be cautious here - just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. You can develop into a reasonably competent Astrologer without being proficient in all the bells and whistles and indeed some approaches just don't fit with some of them.

There are also things which may (or may not) be side issues. Juan is right, the two dimensional chart is not a fully accurate reflection of the sky at that moment in time. One riposte, which is not really made, is 'does it really matter?' What am I judging, the chart or the sky? Now that clearly requires some thought and there are also clearly different answers that are possible. Providing that the Astrologer recognises the difference, it is quite possible to argue that the Astrologer makes the judgement on the basis of the chart, and NOT the sky, as soniah in the thread points out, though too rudely for me.

As far as I can see, Juan is arguing that an Astrologer who claims that the chart is an exact replication of the sky is wrong, and I fully agree with that point, Elsewhere he does not seem to be challenging Astrological method, so if I argue that my judgement is made on the chart, is his point relevant, if I know the difference and insist it's the chart that is being judged? Again there are a variety of responses to that.

It's one of the pleasures of the voyage through Astrology that one eventually looks at such questions and in the light of one's experience and knowledge comes to a conclusion.