"The Great Introduction" By Abu Ma'shar

[DC80]

Having struggled to translate scraps from Masha Allah in the past (and that was in Latin) I can appreciate the work Benjamin Dykes and others do.

The "work" they do causes more harm than good.

After you were certain to a fine degree concerning the time of the entrance of the Sun into Aries (as was said). and of the Ascendant of his entrance, and concerning all the other houses, and the places of the planets, see which planet is the Lord of the Ascendant, and how it is disposed, and where it is. For if it were direct, nd free from combustion, and were in the Ascendant by 3° ahead of the line or 4° after, you should not seek another, because he will be the Lord of the Year or Revolution; and he will be the significator of the condition of the common people, and nothing else will be able to deprive him of that ruler, If indeed he were retrograde, or combust, he already cannot be the Lor of the Year or Revolution, because a retrograde or combust planet cannot be the Lord of the Year: for his virtue is annihilated, except for a great reason (which can happen only most rarely). Then seek the rulership from the exaltation. For fi the ascending were the exaltation of some planet, see the ruler from him: wherefore if he were in the degree f the Ascendant, or by 3° ahead or 4° behind, he will be the Lord of the Year or Revolution and will be the significator of the condition of the common people, if he were free from the aforesaid impediments. If in deed he were impeded, as I said regarding the Lord of the Ascendant, he will not be the Lord of the Year or Revolution.

A beginner looks at that and says, "Forget it" because it's incomprehensible to beginners (not to mention everything in it is wrong.)

I could rewrite in about 3 sentences using modern language that wouldn't scare people off. It's almost like they don't want people to learn traditional astrology.

This is the kind of stupidity that misled people into falsely believing the "Lord of the Geniture" -- c'mon people, chart ruler....just say it: chart ruler -- is the most pristine star in the chart and it's wrong.

If the chart ruler (assuming there is one because not all charts have one) is retrograde, combust, peregrine, out of sect, in aversion to benefics and attacked by malefics then that's just the way it is and it pretty much sums up their entire life.

 

[DC80]

Interesting information - thankyou.

Neugebauer has something incomprehensible about adding 2+4+6+etc., which is clearly a mistranslation. He does not seem to have read the next paragraph where the foregoing methodology is explained clearly enough. -- Robert Schmidt

That sums up Neugebauer.

Neugebauer didn't understand any of the concepts or methods and had no desire to understand them which why a lot of the passages in his translations are wrong.

In this instance the method is clearly explained in the very next paragraph so either Neugebauer didn't get it (and he probably didn't because he didn't understand much) or he didn't care enough to go back to correct his bad translation.

This has to do with profections falling in an empty place (something else Neugebauer didn't understand). The sign ruler is not the only significator for the year. There's at least one other star acting as a significator and since none of the software out there calculates that for you it has to be done by hand which is a pain in the butt and one reason I switched to directing Fortune/Spirit.

 

[FraterAC]

The "work" they do causes more harm than good.

So do you translate these texts for yourself?
How else is anyone going to have access to this information, except to rely on people who take the time to learn Latin, Greek, Arabic, and possibly Hindi or Sanskrit to bring these texts over?
BTW one might include Ruman Kolev as well.

 

[DC80]

Science is principally a method, a body of knowledge that has been tested, and that is always being added to. Not all outcomes in science are known beforehand. That's why there are experiments.

You're conflating scientific methodology with science. They're different.

Scientific methodology is creating an hypothesis then devising an experiment to test the hypothesis. If you fail your hypothesis is flawed so either modify or discard. If you're successful, you have a working theory and through more testing can have concrete science.

If I mix nitric acid with aniline it will burn. It will burn every time everywhere. Guaranteed. It will even burn in a vacuum like space.

That's science. Predictable. Repeatable. Given the quantities of nitric acid and aniline I can tell you how long it will burn down to the millisecond. I can even tell you the maximum temperature reached. And that is true every time everywhere.

Medicine is not science. It is an art that uses the scientific method. A patient presents with these symptoms. You craft an hypothesis then test your hypothesis using whatever diagnostic methods are appropriate. Maybe a blood test. Maybe an MRI. Maybe a combination of diagnostic methods. If the test results fail your hypothesis, you have to start over with a new hypothesis.

If tests confirm your hypothesis you have a working theory but you cannot make any predictions. In fact, medical ethics forbids making predictions because the results are neither predictable nor repeatable.

I assume Sunshine astrology refers to Sun Sign astrology, which I suppose is OK as far as it goes, which definitely isn't very far.

Daily horoscopes are a joke for amusement only. Given that there are more than 946 Octillion possible chart combinations (excluding Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, minors and asteroids) it might actually apply to one of the 7 billion people on Earth. Maybe.

I do not know what is meant by Modern astrology. Alan Leo, Max Heindel and the 19th and 20th Century Theosophists? Uranian astrology and Cosmobiology? Western Siderealism? Hermetic astrology (CoL)? Humanistic astrology? Evolutionary astrology? Harmonic astrology? The Gauquelin studies (is that the name the writer was looking for, above?)? Vibrational astrology? Esoteric astrology (where would one have to be to disprove that to anyone's satisfaction?)?

All of those will do nicely.

For me, anything after 750 CE because it's all corrupted and perverted.

 

[FraterAC]

750 CE

That is literally the Dark Ages.
Pre-Charlemagne and his missions to the East. Nearly 700 years before the Renaissance. Everything from the Classical era was lost to the West.
If one has a problem with the Islamic scholars, they were the only ones (that we know of) who had preserved the Classical works in any discipline, at least in any quantity. Go East, young man!

 

[DC80]

Which medieval astrologers, if any, got it right?

Zahel mostly and also al-Batanni who corrected a lot of Ptolemy's mistakes. Morinus for the most part even though he made things worse because Ptolemy messed up the triplicity scheme and then the Arabs and Persians messed it up even worse and Morinus tried to fix it but made it worse.

Natal was borne out of mundane and horary was borne out of electional but natal/mundane and electional/horary are two different methods.

The Arabs and Persians conflated electional/horary with natal.

And the Sun could even be the Lord of the Year if he were receiving or collecting the lights or strengths of the planets --

There it is. Collecting light is electional/horary, not natal/mundane.

It was Abu-Mashar who created the stupid 7th place of open enemies and lawsuits confusing electional/horary with natal.

Everyone who's doing the stupid 7th is "open enemies" and lawsuits is reading the chart wrong and their predictions will be wrong and even worse they won't correctly predict a lawsuit because they have been deceived into believing the 7th place is lawsuits.

The only value of the Arabs, Persians and Medieval astrologers is their delineations which are mostly right on target.

Sadly, some people have little brains and whine that the delineations are "draconian" blah, blah, blah, blah,

The little brains don't understand there are 1,000's of possible delineations for any two stars in aspect and the Greeks didn't have time to write them out so they gave either the best case scenario or the worst case scenario on what was obviously the false assumption that people would be smart enough to modify the delineation based on the actual conditions of the stars in aspect, the signs their in, their places in the chart, and other stars in aspect to them.

But methods and procedures? They're all wrong.

They didn't understand planetary periods and they didn't understand how to cast solar return charts and they didn't understand how to cast secondary progression charts and they didn't understand how to do transits and they didn't understand how to use the Lots or their purpose and then you have people conjuring up "fixes" to fix the mess they made and more people creating "fixes" to fix that mess and it's a vicious cycle.

 

[DC80]

Elsewhere I've weighed in more positively on Ptolemy, to whom we owe a great deal. Had his works not been so well received and eventually passed on to Catholic Europe, the church would not have promoted the teaching of astrology in universities as part of the quadrivium. They eventually ditched it as counter the First Commandment and a questionable track record, but this established a foundation upon which others could build.

Ptolemy is the David Icke of astrology. Thanks to modern technology we may be able to repair the damage Ptolemy caused by the end of this century. Maybe.

Again, you display no understanding of history.

Aristotle was wrong. About everything. The nova that everyone saw in the 16th Century proved that and people like Tycho Brahe realized that Aristotle was fraud and chucked his books in the trash because Earth is not flat and not the center of the universe and all his other nonsense and Aristotle was nothing but a fraud.

That was a momentous event because it was the first step in freeing humanity from the chains of Aristotle and putting an end to human suffering.

The two things Ptolemy and Rhetorius had in common is neither were astrologers and neither knew anything about astrology.

Where they differ is Rhetorius was honest and he truly was a treasure (pardon the pun). He names who he's quoting and he's even quoting Kidinnu the Chaldean. Rhetorius did a fairly good job translating. That's one reason we know the Arabs and Persians mistranslated Dorotheus because Rhetorius translates it correctly.

Ptolemy was dishonest. He's quoting Nechepso and Petrosiris and one or two others and we know that for a fact because other astrologers quote the exact same passages.

You don't seem to understand Ptolemy was attempting to show how astrology fits the Aristotelian view except it doesn't and never will.

To have any chance of doing that Ptolemy had to change the nature of signs, and then because of that he had to change the nature of the stars and then because of that he had to change the triplicities and then because of that he had to change the bounds (terms) and on top of that Ptolemy messed up the places.

The Arabs and Persians relied on Ptolemy and so their goofy almutens and stupid scoring systems and silly "accidental dignity/debility" is all wrong.

Mars opposition Saturn with Moon in a true t-square. That's a violent death. The only question is how. Moon in a right square is an execution. The little brains with their rigid thinking don't understand the state is not the only entity that executes people. A lot of people in America are executed but not by an order from the court.

So Mars has this many points and Saturn has this many points and almuten this and that Moon in "accidental dignity/debility" and what do they got?

Nothing except wasting their time and drawing the wrong conclusion because they're doing stupid stuff and not reading the chart.

The only person who did as much damage as Ptolemy is Partridge so between Ptolemy, Partridge, the Arabs/Persians and Aristotle you have the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

 

[waybread]

Neugebauer has something incomprehensible about adding 2+4+6+etc., which is clearly a mistranslation. He does not seem to have read the next paragraph where the foregoing methodology is explained clearly enough. -- Robert Schmidt

That sums up Neugebauer.

Neugebauer didn't understand any of the concepts or methods and had no desire to understand them which why a lot of the passages in his translations are wrong.

In this instance the method is clearly explained in the very next paragraph so either Neugebauer didn't get it (and he probably didn't because he didn't understand much) or he didn't care enough to go back to correct his bad translation.

This has to do with profections falling in an empty place (something else Neugebauer didn't understand). The sign ruler is not the only significator for the year. There's at least one other star acting as a significator and since none of the software out there calculates that for you it has to be done by hand which is a pain in the butt and one reason I switched to directing Fortune/Spirit.

For anyone who hasn't read Otto Neugebauer's and his associates' research on ancient horoscopes, the following works are recommended. One signal contribution that he made was showing that ancient astrology was not just some ridiculous superstition, but that ancient astrologers actually worked out planetary positions, which in those days required a knowledge of mathematics, Neugebauer's own specialty. Neugebauer had a specific, targeted project, which didn't require him to practice astrology, but simply to calculate planetary positions from the date on a horoscope, and then to see whether the astrologers got it right.

Neugebauer, Otto, and H. B. Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes, (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 48, 1959.)

--- and Richard Parker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts: III. Decans, Planets, Constellations, and Zodiacs. (Brown University Press, 1969)

-----Demotic Horoscopes, J. of the American Oriental Society, (vol. 63: 115-127, 1943.)

Another important point is that science, like astrology is cumulative and iterative. An analogy would be a fruit tree. Non-bearing branches get pruned out, but the tree itself is nurtured. Astrologers can prune out material that is non-productive, while sustaining the productive branches. An orchardist wouldn't kill a tree if s/he could simply trim and fertilize it.

It's easy to forget that all kinds of divinatory methods were practiced in Antiquity and the early medieval period (haruspicy, anyone?), but the Arab astrologers like Abu Ma'shar flourished because of the solid Hellenistic foundation in mathematical astrology laid for them.

Then they added their own mystical touches, oftentimes. Abu Ma'ashar apparently introduced Hermeticism into his work; which was another theme adopted from Hellenists.

Whatever Abu Ma'shar's failings may have been as a **Persian** astrologer, he was widely known and respected. His works books cited by the medieval European astrologers whose work has come down to us today. The history of astrologer would be poorer, not richer, with the elimination of significant astrologers from the past on the unsubstantiated, hyperbolic view that they were "morons" or "idiots."

DC80, I hope you will start your own thread on the true, pure astrology as you conceptualize it.

 

[FraterAC]

DC80, I hope you will start your own thread on the true, pure astrology as you conceptualize it.

And with demonstrations of various techniques and the success you've had with them.

 

[waybread]

DC80, your post 47 is dangerously close to being an attacking post and has veered off-topic

Again, if the vast repository of the history of astrology seems erroneous to you, please start your own thread on what you see as the true astrology.

Elsewhere I have addressed what I see as Ptolemy's signal contributions -- to the very astrology that you practice.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Aristotle was wrong. About everything. The nova that everyone saw in the 16th Century proved that and people like Tycho Brahe realized that Aristotle was fraud and chucked his books in the trash because Earth is not flat and not the center of the universe and all his other nonsense and Aristotle was nothing but a fraud. Ptolemy was attempting to show how astrology fits the Aristotelian view except it doesn't and never will.

good point
Earth is indeed not flat

To have any chance of doing that Ptolemy had to change the nature of signs, and then because of that he had to change the nature of the stars and then because of that he had to change the triplicities and then because of that he had to change the bounds (terms) and on top of that Ptolemy messed up the places. The Arabs and Persians relied on Ptolemy and so their goofy almutens and stupid scoring systems and silly "accidental dignity/debility" is all wrong.

.

 

[waybread]

In any historical discussion, it is important to avoid the trap of presentism, or interpreting the past through our own modern lenses, and not through the lived experiences of people in the past.

Certainly it took time for people to work out the empirical evidence for a spherical earth (vs. declaring the sphere to be the perfect shape on philosophical grounds.) Aristotle (4th century BCE) was actually one of the first Greek intellectuals to adduce a spherical earth (based on the shape of lunar eclipses.) Aristotle's 4 elements didn't mean the periodic table. It meant states of matter, which are broadly recognizable today. These became the basis for astrological temperaments, and just a basic sense of individuals' orientation in life, which works really well in natal chart-reading today.

Poor Ptolemy! He is criticized for cadging from the Egyptian mystical tradition of Nechepso and Petosoris (as was entirely common among Hellenist astrologers,) and then for introducing the proto-science of Aristotle into astrology. One wonders if his critics have actually read any of his work, and considered his multiple contributions to astrology.

Speaking of evidence, it would be nice to see some actual evidence in support of the thesis that Everybody Else Got It Wrong, (except for ..... ???)

I found my copy of Al Biruni, The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology. He cites a variety of sources by name or region, but refrains from flame-throwing. He simply states their differences of opinion, without bullying the reader as to which he thinks is most accurate.

A good take-away from another Arab astrologer.

 

[JUPITERASC]

In any historical discussion, it is important to avoid the trap of presentism, or interpreting the past through our own modern lenses, and not through the lived experiences of people in the past.

Certainly it took time for people to work out the empirical evidence for a spherical earth (vs. declaring the sphere to be the perfect shape on philosophical grounds.) Aristotle (4th century BCE) was actually one of the first Greek intellectuals to adduce a spherical earth (based on the shape of lunar eclipses.) Aristotle's 4 elements didn't mean the periodic table. It meant states of matter, which are broadly recognizable today. These became the basis for astrological temperaments, and just a basic sense of individuals' orientation in life, which works really well in natal chart-reading today.

Poor Ptolemy! He is criticized for cadging from the Egyptian mystical tradition of Nechepso and Petosoris (as was entirely common among Hellenist astrologers,) and then for introducing the proto-science of Aristotle into astrology. One wonders if his critics have actually read any of his work, and considered his multiple contributions to astrology.

Speaking of evidence, it would be nice to see some actual evidence in support of the thesis that Everybody Else Got It Wrong, (except for ..... ???)

https://iais.org.my/attach/Al-Biruni.pdf

I found my copy of Al Biruni, The Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology.

FREE ONLINE

The Book of instruction on the elements of the art of astrology by al-Biruni : Smirna Si : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

typewritten English translation with Biruni's Arabic text

archive.org

He cites a variety of sources by name or region, but refrains from flame-throwing. He simply states their differences of opinion, without bullying the reader as to which he thinks is most accurate. A good take-away from another Arab astrologer.