skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Cazimi but in 8th house
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1436

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
damon wrote:
Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north Thumbs up


[1] Sun always has a zero degree latitude so it the mercury that has to come closer.It should be something like the superior conjunction of mercury in 9 May 2000. 0349 hrs GMT
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/mercury1999.pdf

I think [2] that would be a Cazimi.
PD

[1] And this is why the quotation of Ptolemy does not help because he would accept any rate of latitude.

[2] But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16´ or 17´minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
pankajdubey wrote:
damon wrote:
Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north Thumbs up


[1] Sun always has a zero degree latitude so it the mercury that has to come closer.It should be something like the superior conjunction of mercury in 9 May 2000. 0349 hrs GMT
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/mercury1999.pdf

I think [2] that would be a Cazimi.
PD

[1] And this is why the quotation of Ptolemy does not help because he would accept any rate of latitude.

[2] But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16´ or 17´minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes


Come to think about it, isn't it a real power to be in the Sun's heart and still be visible Smile

Logic is a very strange thing.

I thought that the latitude has to be within 16 minutes, so it has to be less than 17min.

In the ephemeris, only when the latitude is less than 16 minutes do you find this additional data:


Quote:
superior conj 2000 May 09 03:49 18°b49’53 0°00’53
minimum elong 2000 May 09 03:47 18°b49’39 0°00’53
behind sun begin 2000 May 08 22:37 18°b21’38
behind sun end 2000 May 09 08:57 19°b17’43


starts on 2000 May 08 and end 2000 May 09 08:57


The trick is this-
save the linked file, open in adobe pdf, then Cmd+F or Ctr+ F for "behind sun" and will be ending with all superior conjunctions with mercury latitude less than 16 min.

eg: 2002
Quote:

superior conj 2002 Nov 14 04:39 21°h37’49 0°-7’-37
minimum elong 2002 Nov 14 03:43 21°h34’03 0°07’29
behind sun begin 2002 Nov 13 18:10 20°h55’53
behind sun end 2002 Nov 14 13:16 22°h12’09


If you mean something more complicated than this , then I won't get it.

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1436

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
johannes susato wrote:
But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16´ or 17´minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes


Come to think about it, isn't it a real power to be in the Sun's heart and still be visible Smile

Lala Happy

pankajdubey wrote:

I thought that the latitude has to be within 16 minutes, so it has to be less than 17min.
As you said, PD:
pankajdubey wrote:

Logic is a very strange thing.
To be honest, here I do not know what you want to say.

pankajdubey wrote:

In the ephemeris, only when the latitude is less than 16 minutes do you find this additional data:
Quote:
superior conj 2000 May 09 03:49 18°b49’53 0°00’53
minimum elong 2000 May 09 03:47 18°b49’39 0°00’53
behind sun begin 2000 May 08 22:37 18°b21’38
behind sun end 2000 May 09 08:57 19°b17’43


starts on 2000 May 08 and end 2000 May 09 08:57


The trick is this-
save the linked file, open in adobe pdf, then Cmd+F or Ctr+ F for "behind sun" and will be ending with all superior conjunctions with mercury latitude less than 16 min.

eg: 2002
Quote:

superior conj 2002 Nov 14 04:39 21°h37’49 0°-7’-37
minimum elong 2002 Nov 14 03:43 21°h34’03 0°07’29
behind sun begin 2002 Nov 13 18:10 20°h55’53
behind sun end 2002 Nov 14 13:16 22°h12’09


If you mean something more complicated than this , then I won't get it.
PD

Now you are joking because I know that you know that I do not 'mean something more complicated than this' !!!

My only point is, whether Coley is not right, when he, in his 'Key . . .', p. 96, claims:
"Cazimi is, when a Planet is in the heart of the Sun which is, when he is within 16 Minutes of his Body, in respect of Longitude and Latitude."

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1436

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

. . . but many thanks for "the trick" anyway, PD. Thumbs up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2961
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

konrad - here is a chart that conforms to what you are looking for..

perhaps some folks would like to make a comment about this chart based on their theories on cazimi, or planets out of sect in cazimi? i will reveal who this famous person is later.
fwiw - the latitude of mars is 00/51..


photo sharing websites
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
konrad - here is a chart that conforms to what you are looking for..

perhaps some folks would like to make a comment about this chart based on their theories on cazimi, or planets out of sect in cazimi? i will reveal who this famous person is later.
fwiw - the latitude of mars is 00/51..


photo sharing websites


whatever you may say about
this person I can justify on the basis of Jupiter and Mars.
Someone whose fortunes changed after marriage? ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1436

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The least you could say is, that Vx and Chiron on this Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques Forum are a little hazardous. Shocked

Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suspect Coley's definition of cazimi being within 16" of latitude and longitude of the sun (thankyou Johannes) came from recent observations of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the sun. Here was visual proof that a planet in the heart of the sun was visible and had the power to overcome the brilliance of the sun.

The transits occurred when the planets were retrograde, of course, and it might have seemed a bit odd that a planet only had the power to overcome the sun when it was retrograde. However, we must remember that when Coley was writing, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe was in its dying days but was never-the-less still current. As the orbits of the Moon, Mercury and Venus were within the orbit of the sun (in the earth centred cosmology) it would be expected that future transits would be seen when Mercury and Venus were direct.

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:
I suspect Coley's definition of cazimi being within 16" of latitude and longitude of the sun (thankyou Johannes) came from recent observations of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the sun. Here was visual proof that a planet in the heart of the sun was visible and had the power to overcome the brilliance of the sun.

The transits occurred when the planets were retrograde, of course, and it might have seemed a bit odd that a planet only had the power to overcome the sun when it was retrograde. However, we must remember that when Coley was writing, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe was in its dying days but was never-the-less still current. As the orbits of the Moon, Mercury and Venus were within the orbit of the sun (in the earth centred cosmology) it would be expected that future transits would be seen when Mercury and Venus were direct.

Geoffrey


If this is not kept in mind then Lilly's calculation of accidental dignity scores will yield a zero(+5 for Cazimi and -5 for retrogression.) .

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan quotes this:
http://theastrologydictionary.com/c/cazimi/

Quote:
There appears to have been some disagreement amongst some early Medieval sources about how close a planet must get to the Sun before it is considered to be “in the heart” or cazimi:

According to Rhetorius and Sahl a planet is considered to be “in the heart” as soon as it comes within one degree of a conjunction with the Sun.

According to al-Qabisi and Bonatti a planet is considered to be “in the heart” as soon as it comes within 16 minutes of a conjunction with the Sun.
It seems that the earlier authors defined the concept according to the wider value of one degree, whereas most of the later Medieval and Renaissance astrologers used the tighter value of 16 minutes.


I can thicken the plot here.

If you look at the data ...behind the sun begins... behind the sun ends.
There is degree difference of longitude when the latitude differernce is less than 16 minutes.

Maybe both are correct but something got lost in translation and the latitude got confused with the longitude.

So, a neo Trad definition could be..
Cazimi starts when the planet is within a degree longitude of the Sun and its latitude is less than 16 mins on either side of the sun.(superior conjunction).


{and that is why one came out with a tan where you were expecting to be roasted alive Lala Happy }

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lihin



Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 470
Location: Mount Kailash

Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:11 pm    Post subject: Sun-Dance Reply with quote

Good evening,

If one astutely follows transit data, one can notice that Hélios occasionally exhibits 1 second of ecliptical latitude. He is dancing round a barycentre situated outside his circumference.

Of course, this phenomenon is not visible to unaided human sight.

Otherwise i should agree that, is the case of this thread, one has at best a 'Cazimi of longitude', not a complete one. This might be compared to partial and full eclipses, the latter much stronger than the former. However, with Hermès' ecliptical northern latitude of 1 degree 21', this comparison would be too generous, as Hélios has a diameter of about 30' of arc. No apparent 'bodily' contact occurs.

Ptolemy himself gave the explanation why he considered ecliptical latitude for conjunctions but not for aspects in the last sentence of the text quoted above.

Best regards,

lihin
_________________
Non esse nihil non est.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yukionna



Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 128

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm resuscitating this thread, because I'm currently working on a chart which has
Sun 1°33'46" S and Venus 1°29'22", but Venus' latitude is 1° 1'12" S, so strictly speaking this isn't cazimi. However, looking at the houses it rules, and how the realization of the topics connected with them works out, I would say that this is a strong Venus. It rules the 2d and 9th whole sign house, and is positioned in the 6th. This is a guy who went abroad, started his own small construction company, employs a few people on an on-and-off basis, and is doing really good financially.

James, if you're still around I'd love to hear what's with the chart you posted, with Mars cazimi. Latitude was too big in this case as well, so it would be interesting to know whether it is just completely combust thereby not able to realize the affairs of the houses it rules, or the opposite.
Yuki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2961
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi yukionna,

the chart is for daniel lavoie - http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Lavoie%2C_Daniel

here is his website - http://www.lavoiedaniel.com/site_internet/

hi pankajdubey - sorry i missed your comment previously, or perhaps i saw it but didn't have an answer for it.. it is difficult to get info on him and it is in french when i try!

as for the question of latitude - i am curious to know how coley got to the position of 'it's only cazimi if within 16 minutes of latitude.. an interesting observation is this - uranus is always very close to zero degree latitude with the sun. the sun is always at zero latitude s it is the basis for defining latitude - latitude in relation to the sun.. typically planets are not connected by latitude in an exact manner, but i am curious if someone has a conjunction in latitude - does it share something in common with cazimi and what would the definition of conjunction in latitude? of course coleys 16 minutes sounds quite arbitrary..

astrologers typically ignore latitude, but in reading that book i had mentioned on another thread recently with michael s - "ancient whispers from chaldea" - it is discussed in an original and unique way. the author suggests that the 2 planets that encompass the sun by latitude north and south are important considerations to the expression of the sun. i suppose this has more to do with issues around latitude then cazimi, but it does make one wonder how certain techniques are adopted while others are ignored..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yukionna



Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 128

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks James Very Happy

It seems to me that Mars is able to act: it's exaltation ruler of the MC, and in nice mutual reception with Jupiter. I wouldn't know how else to explain his professional success. Sun rules 4, 8 and 12 and is peregrine, so not much help imo. I obviously haven't looked at his chart in depth yet though, so maybe I should give it more time before jumping to conclusions. What do you think? (about Mars I mean, not about me jumping to conclusions)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Larxene



Joined: 22 Sep 2012
Posts: 312

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello guys,

I have a comment regarding Pankaj's old comment about the disagreement on the number of degrees required to be in "cazimi".

To my understanding, the Hellenistics had a different concept of what makes a degree or portion (moira). Degrees are discrete spaces that are nonetheless connected to each other (making it possible for the division of space to be hierarchical). So two degrees next to each other is like two adjacent rooms in a school; they are NEXT to each other and therefore connected, but they are separated by a wall. Thus, anything in the same degree is like two people in the same room. They are considered to be in the same space.

Note that the closeness of aspects and conjunction were mostly determined using degrees. Smaller units like minutes or seconds were not present in most the literature I've read (Dorotheus, Valens, Maternus, and a bit of Ptolemy, Hephaistio and Paulus). The exception is Dorotheus, on the topic of length of life technique, but given that the current critical edition is far removed from the original Greek text, it is possible that it was added by the later astrologers.

Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a planet within one degree from the Sun is considered to be 'in its heart', as every minute within that degree belongs to the same space.



In light of the idea of "discrete spaces", however, this sentence construction is potentially misleading, because it leads the modern mind to translate it like this: "a planet within SIXTY MINUTES from the Sun is 'in the heart' of the Sun."

This is NOT what is meant. A better sentence construction would be this. "A planet within the SAME DEGREE as the Sun is 'in the heart' of the Sun."

The difference is as follows. Using the sixty-minute principle, a planet in 6 degrees 1 minute Aries would be in cazimi with the Sun in 5 degrees 59 minutes Aries. This is not the case with the same-degree principle. The second principle requires that the two stars be in the SAME degree. So a planet in 5 degrees 59 degrees is in cazimi if the Sun is in 5 degrees 1 minute of the same sign, but it would not be cazimi if the Sun is in 6 degrees 1 minute.









Regards,

Larxene Xenohart
_________________
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated