Definitions and Foundations, Configuration Intensive

[David_Stricker]

My mailbox provided me with some wonderful surprises this week as both the Planetary Configuration Intensive and the Definitions and Foundations book arrived. I am flooded with new material to study and I am in heaven. A great Father's Day present!

I realized for the attendees of the Intensive that this is old stuff to you (the Intensive was in December 2008). But this is something that I have been anticipating since February.

Since the book is out now, I wondered if we could start discussing the various aspect definitions. I know the Mr. Schmidt has asked in the Intensives that we not write or teach this material. But if we do not discuss the material here, what is the point of this forum? Mr. Schmidt did say in his opening statement, "

"Although I am sure that we will end up exploring in detail many technical issues and concepts on this forum, it is my hope that we do not ignore some of the broader implications and themes of Hellenistic Astrology."

It is my impression that he is concerned that people may go off and begin using this material before it is all presented and take many things out of context. Looking back at things that were written in the late 1990's and comparing it to the material that is coming out now shows the reason for caution. There is so much left to learn and we only have 28 more volumes in the series to go yet! I am resigned to the fact that I will be dead long before I could get to the point that I would consider myself an expert with the Hellenistic approach. But it would seem that this forum would be the place for us to hash out the definitions and begin to work with them in a practical manner. Since we are under the watchful eye of Mr. Schmidt, I am sure he will reign us in if we get too far off base.

I would love to hear from any of the attendees and anything that they have gleaned over the last 6 months. After all, there are two more Intensives completed that you have absorbed as well (12th parts and Hellenistic delineation principles). I regret that I am unable to attend these Intensives but I would hope that we could begin to at least discuss them until the CD's are made available for those of us far afield.

Back to my studies.............

[Rodolfo Veronese]

Mr Stricker, I also had purchased the definitions book and I am very fond of discussing the aspects - or "planetary configurations".

I have done the Zoller's Medieval Course, but in this forum the aim is to discuss the hellenistic doctrine. Despite the fact that many features in both schools are different, my concern is to see some arabic concepts in a "embryonary" form in the hellenistic thought. One of them is the concept of reception.

Abu Mashar has a very thorough description of this concept in his Introduction. I admit I dont know if this concepts can be seem in the hellenistic approach, even in a embryo... Let me quote some of them:

"Pushing nature is if the planet A applies to the lord (B) of the sign in which A is, or in its (B's) exaltation or in its (B's) term, triplicity or decan: then (A) pushes the nature of the planet (B) onto it (B)."

[David_Stricker]

First Baby Steps - Examples of Adherence

For those of us who received Project Hindsight's first volume in the TARES (The Astrological Record of the Early Sages) series, it is obvious that we have a lot of studying to do. And I hope that it is obvious that it is going to take awhile to begin to get up to speed with the material. Mr.Schmidt has spent five years on this baby and I am sure that while he is excited for us to begin sharing in the excitement he has experienced in coming to understand this material, he probably wants us to take our time in trying to understand it. For the people who attended the Configuration Intensive last December, you have a 6 month head start on us in understanding the material.

What I would like to do is start posting some chart examples of the definitions that Mr. Schmidt has worked so hard to draw out from this cryptic text. I am not going to pretend that I can delineate the charts since I am just starting to understand the definitions. But it helps me to see the definitions in chart examples to really begin to get a grip on the material. I hope others of you share the same learning style.

To begin with, my idea is to show the charts with just the relevant planets involved. Delphic Oracle is wonderful and it easily allows you to take out the planets or lots (or even asteroids!) that you don't want to see. As I begin to understand a lot of the definitions and start looking at the chart more as a whole, I plan to add the rest of the planets and lots in the charts.

Attachment by Adherence (kollesis) I thought I would start with this definition since from a modern astrological point of view this definition is not hard to understand. There is adherence or attachment when a faster moving planet is approaching a conjunction with a slower moving planet within three portions (degrees). From a modern point of view it is an applying conjuction within a 3 degree orb. Not a foreign concept, which is why I started with this one. Now there is no indication in the definition how this would be modified if retrogradation is involved. In fact, from what I have seen so far in the material, the subject of retrogradation does not seem to be regularly addressed.

Here is an example of Adherence between Hermes and Zeus. It is in the chart of JFK. One thing that is not readlily apparent but is important to start looking for, is that the planets are not yet in the same confines (terms). Zeus is in the confines of Kronos while Hermes is still in the confines of Zeus. The confines will become important when we look at the definition of "neighboring".

John F Kennedy.gif (21.37 KiB) Viewed 3023 times

[Therese_Hamilton]

David Stricker wrote:

"Since the book is out now, I wondered if we could start discussing the various aspect definitions. I know the Mr. Schmidt has asked in the Intensives that we not write or teach this material. But if we do not discuss the material here, what is the point of this forum?"

I agree that we need a forum to discuss this material. On the Project Hindsight site Mr. Schmidt has posted a pointer to this site, so he expects to participate in discussions here.

[DS:] "It is my impression that he is concerned that people may go off and begin using this material before it is all presented and take many things out of context."

[TH:] Once something is in print and thus made concrete, the author more or less loses control over the content. That is why discussion on this forum would be invaluable. We've seen what can happen to principles in the world of Jyotish/Vedic astrology. For many years now books by modern authors have been published which mix standard older Jyotish material (then called "Hindu astrology") with modern tropical principles. What we have now is a modern mish-mash of mixed concepts with a few even believing the material should be applied in the tropical zodiac. I can understand why Mr. Schmidt would fear this would happen with Hellenistic material

[DS:] "What I would like to do is start posting some chart examples of the definitions that Mr. Schmidt has worked so hard to draw out from this cryptic text. I am not going to pretend that I can delineate the charts since I am just starting to understand the definitions. But it helps me to see the definitions in chart examples to really begin to get a grip on the material. I hope others of you share the same learning style."

[TH:] I agree that this would be an excellent approach. It's all well and good to study the ancient chart examples, but we need to test the concepts with modern charts. Later today I'l review JFK's chart as well as the relevant material in DEFINITIONS AND FOUNDATIONS. Maybe we should use D&F here from now on?

Anytime a specific chart is used for study, we'd need to post the data source and rating as per the Rodden rating. For study we'd need to use only the top rated birth times.

Therese Hamilton

[Therese_Hamilton]

David Stricker wrote:

"To begin with, my idea is to show the charts with just the relevant planets involved."

David, I don't believe this is going to work. For example JFK's chart has Ares in adherence to Hermes, so Hermes is positioned between Zeus and Ares. Then we need the interpretations of these adherences if they exist. Also since dispositors appear to be important, we need to know where the dispositors of these planets are. (I'm rushed at the moment, so have to check D&F for the references here.) I'm convinced that any top astrologer needs a photographic memory.

Also it's been my experience as a long-time astrologer that often configurations in a natal chart don't operate all the time, but only at critical times in the life when activated by progressions and/or the solar return. We see that each natal chart is a complex web, and it's very difficult to reference only one small part of the chart apart from the total chart. However, we can probably work with Ares-Hermes-Zeus. But it wouild seem best to have the entire natal chart to view.

Do we have the data source/rating for JFK?

I apologize: This post is what Mr. Schmidt would call a place holder until I have time to check the source material. I'm not sure that we can avoid jumping ahead to later Hellenistic material (which may not be accurate) for interpretation. But first: all that's relevant in D&F.

Therese Hamilton

[David_Stricker]

Maybe it would be best if I just showed an example of planets from one of the definitions that does not belong to anyone's chart. The reason that I left all the other planets off was because I wanted to focus just on the example of two planets, one faster, one slower, with the faster approaching within 3 portions. I am not saying anything about delineation of this adherence with relationship to JFK. Matter of fact I indicated that I know that I am not in a position to start delineating with the definitions that I have just received in the last week or so.

I know about dispositors and time lords. My purpose has been misunderstood. I was trying to show an example of one of the definitions, not to interpret it.

[Therese_Hamilton]

The reason that I left all the other planets off was because I wanted to focus just on the example of two planets, one faster, one slower, with the faster approaching within 3 portions. I am not saying anything about delineation of this adherence with relationship to JFK...
I know about dispositors and time lords. My purpose has been misunderstood. I was trying to show an example of one of the definitions, not to interpret it.

I'm sorry I misunderstood. Then to quote Robert Schmidt for those who don't have D&F:

"As for the astrological meaning of adherence, I can think of no better term than attachment, which retains the physical sense of adherence, but also brings in the dimension of clinging or cleaving to something." (p. 164)

I have a further question. Does adherence occur when the faster planet is near the end of an image, and the slower planet is in the following image? This is the case for JFK in the sidereal zodiac (Krishnamurti) where Hermes is at 28 degrees of Aries but Zeus is 26 minutes into Taurus. (Though I'm comfortable with Greek deity names, I'm not yet comfortable with changing the names of the 12 images. The mind has to linger a bit too long to make the changeover.) Having just reviewed this section in D&F, I didn't see cross-image adherence discussed. (It may be discussed elsewhere in the book.)

Therese Hamilton

[David_Stricker]

"Bodily"Enclosure(emperischesis) versus enclosure by rays?

I have been considering the issue of enclosure (which is similar in definition to the Medieval 'besiegement' or 'veneration'). Antiochus does not mention enclosure by rays and I think I might understand why. Here is the definition of enclosure from Antiochus from page 197 of the Definitions and Foundations:

"ANTIOCHUS 12. That there is said to be enclosure (emperischesis) whenever two planets encompass (perilambanō) a single planet with no other star casting a ray (ballō aktina) in between them upon those portions the planet has gone past or upon those to which it will go, and surely not within seven portions. Such enclosure is good when it happens by good stars, but poor (phaulos) by poor stars."

When trying to consider the enclosure by rays as mentioned by Porphyry, I ran into a snag when I was considering the leading and following issue. If I understand Mr. Schmidt's explanation of striking with a ray (from his commentaries and his Configuration Intensive), I am not sure how two planetary rays can enclose a planet. If striking with a ray occurs from a planet with a greater number of portions in an image to one with a lesser number of portions, then I am not sure how it would be possible to have two planets enclosing another planet with rays. Let me try to clarify my concern with a couple of examples.

First, a simple enclosure (without any rays intervening) could be:

Kronos in 5 portions of the Ram
Aphrodite in 15 portions of the Ram
Ares in 22 portions of the Ram

Here Aphrodite is enclosed by Kronos and Ares. Please notice that the only time the 7 portions is mentioned is with regard to the ray striking within the enclosure. There does not seem to be a portional limitation for bodily enclosure. I would think that this means you could have a planet at the 1st portion of an image and one at the 30th portion of an image enclosing a planet anywhere in between. But the possibility of a ray striking within the enclosure is more likely the larger the enclosure is.

Now this enclosure would have an intervention (?) if there was another planet casting a ray into the enclosure within 7 portions. I believe this means within 7 portions of the enclosed planet. For example:

Kronos at 5 portions of the Ram
Aphrodite at 13 portions of the Ram Zeus at 19 portions of the Crab
Ares at 22 portions of the Ram

Zeus is casting a ray tetragonally between Aphrodite and Ares.With Zeus at 19 portions because he has a greater number of degrees than Aphrodite and would keep in agreement with Mr. Schmidt's elaboration of the "leading and following" concept that is necessary to understand his definition of striking with a ray. If Zeus was at 10 portions of the Crab, he would be leading by Aphrodite image but not by portion. At 10 portions, Zeus would be casting a ray at Kronos and would be beholding Aphrodite.

So here is the difficulty I see regarding enclosure by rays. If the planet casting the ray has to be in a greater number of degrees than the planet being struck, how can the planet being struck be enclosed. For example:

Kronos in 10 portions of the Crab
Aphrodite in 15 portions of the Ram
Ares in 18 portions of the Crab.

Now Ares is definitely casting a ray tetragonally towards Aphrodite. Ares is in a greater number of portions than Aphrodite. But how would Kronos be striking Aphrodite with a ray? Since Aphrodite has a greater number of portions than Kronos, it would seem in this example that Aphrodite is casting a ray at Kronos since she is leading portionally and Kronos would be beholding Aphrodite since he is following by portion.

Maybe I am missing something here. But it seems to me that enclosing by striking with a ray does not seem possible when considering it portionally (which may be why that Antiochus does not mention it)..If striking with a ray really has to do with leading and following by portions. as Mr. Schmidt has argues on page 210," it is the planet with more portions in the image it occupies that strikes with a ray the planet with fewer portions", then it would not be possible for a planet to be enclosed by rays. I think.......

I would appreciate if someone could see the error in my thinking or a way for a planet to be enclosed portionally by the rays of two planets.

[Robert_Schmidt]

Thank you Mr. Stricker and Ms. Hamilton for taking up the task of exemplifying the configuration definitions from the new translation.

A couple of quick comments.

It is important to understand the astronomical scenarios exactly before we cautiously move on to the task of delineation. Although there is suviving Hellenistic delineation text for most of these scenarios, the underlying principles in them are not immediately evident. That is one of the reasons why I have taken such trouble to come up with exact translations of the technical terminology. In some cases this is the best clue as to how to delineate a given configuration.

To Ms. Hamilton: Unlike testimony and concourse, adherence can occur across the boundaries between images, as can joining in a figure,

To Mr. Stricker: Enclosure by ray in Porphyry's sense (assuming it is a valid concept) involves two planets casting rays, one on either side of the enclosed planet. To cast or emit a ray to some portion of the zodiac is not the same as striking a planet with a ray, which involves the notions of leading and following in the formation of a figure. So there is reallly no contradiction here.

You have also brought up the lack of mention of retrogradation in the sequence of definitions in the Antiochus material. I have been working very hard on this issue in recent months. For the moment let me just say that retrogradation does not exclude planets from possessing the various types of configuration, although I believe it significantly affects the interpretation. More on this in due time.

Robert Schmidt

[David_Stricker]

Mr. Schmidt,

Thank you for bringing to my attention the difference between casting a ray into an image and striking a planet with a ray. I am very much taken with the idea of leading and following and the striking of a ray from the higher portions to the lower portions of an image. It is one of those topics that may not have been clarified unless you had worked on it with your background and your extreme diligence.