question about the decans

yogiman said:

There are 7 double letters for the planets, 12 single letters for the signs, and 3 mother letters.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the posters in this thread realise that basic attribution... what I am asking you is for a clarification on what you mean by;

yogiman said:

So some think that the 3 external planets are good for psychological astrology. If applied in the occult system, they would replace the three mother letters, which have no place in the decan orbit.

Click to expand...

because as I see it , 3 mother letters relate to 3 elements air fire water. They are a different class of letters than those that relate to planets, so by 'replacing ' the three mother letters with the outer planets s, do you mean also to attribute them to the Kabbalistic Sephiroth ? In any case the mother letters and all others go to the paths on the ToL is that what you mean - including them on the ToL on the pathways and substituting the elemental letters with the outer planets?

Yogiman said:

By the way, instead of cracking down on me, you would have spent your analytical agression better on some authors. But well, that would go against some group will, isn't it? Brave.

Click to expand...

A rather strange and confusing comment (again) .... I am trying to get clarity from what appears to me a mixed up and confusing post ... maybe it is language and syntax, that is why I am asking you questions, the lack of understanding could be mine .. . I am to trying to understand you. If you feel I am cracking down on you it is because you wont answer a question and throw in obtuse comments and keep changing tac ... .

What 'some group will' are you talking about and what's with the 'brave' at the end?

Again .... you keep doing this .... and I keep asking you to just plainly say what your problem or issue is and then the REAL issue can be addressed.

ravenest said:

As far as Kabbalah goes, I have no need to consider it as I use the old system in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life ; 3. Shabbathai (Saturn) , 2. Mazloth (Zodiac ) and 1. 1 Rashith ha-Gilgalim (Primum Mobile or Celestial Sphere).

Click to expand...

Astrology is not my strength, but I completely agree about the mythology of the different planets corresponding to the different Sephiroth. The outer planets seem to make sense to me, maybe even because I hardly know another Tree without them. Saturn, although male, makes for an excellent stand-in for Binah because of its mythology. Neptune signifies not only the "king of the sea," but the power that resides in the sea, and so is a good Chochma. Pluto for Keter seems a bit more difficult to resolve, but can still be done.

In another thread we discussed the infinite-density singularity that created the universe. Maybe in this day and age the Solar System is too small for our purposes, and Keter could be attributed to that same singularity (these scientific terms are so far removed from our reality that they may as well be symbolic meditative triggers). Chochma is that singularity expanding, thus creating Binah as the space into which it expands. Were I "that kind of person," I would say Kabbalists knew about the Big Bang long before others did, using simple math. Thankfully, I'm not the kind of person who would say that.

Ross G Caldwell said:

Fortunately Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but rather is defined as a "dwarf planet", whose main difference from full planets is that it has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit (Pluto's orbit actually takes it within Neptune's), and is described in the International Astronomical Union's XXVIth General Assembly resolution on this question as "the prototype of a new category of Trans-Neptunian Objects".

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation and link. Still, I suppose astrology can't be blamed for fudging strict astronomy once in a while, seeing the Sun and Moon as planets. Since I do not (yet) use "strict" astrology but rather semantic connections stemming from mythology, Pluto as a planet still works fine for me. It is also interesting to note that although the same planets may appear on both paths and emanations, their functions differ. Binah's Saturn's "keyword" may be "structure" (simplifying), but it is vastly different from the Universe's Saturn, and I find that fascinating, really, and quite exciting.

Not to go too off-topic, though, I seem to be having trouble understanding the Leo connection at all. Wands begin with Aries, and it seems proper that they should, although I know not why (a feeling, I guess). Even looking beyond the "why," the attributions make sense. Assuming a certain system, can, for example, Completion be anything other than Venus in Aries? It seems such an elegant fit, I would find it hard to not find it making sense.

closrapexa said:

Astrology is not my strength, but I completely agree about the mythology of the different planets corresponding to the different Sephiroth. The outer planets seem to make sense to me, maybe even because I hardly know another Tree without them. Saturn, although male, makes for an excellent stand-in for Binah because of its mythology. Neptune signifies not only the "king of the sea," but the power that resides in the sea, and so is a good Chochma. Pluto for Keter seems a bit more difficult to resolve, but can still be done.

In another thread we discussed the infinite-density singularity that created the universe. Maybe in this day and age the Solar System is too small for our purposes, and Keter could be attributed to that same singularity (these scientific terms are so far removed from our reality that they may as well be symbolic meditative triggers). Chochma is that singularity expanding, thus creating Binah as the space into which it expands. Were I "that kind of person," I would say Kabbalists knew about the Big Bang long before others did, using simple math. Thankfully, I'm not the kind of person who would say that.

Click to expand...

I can get that and I DO think we can equate modern cosmological theory with the top triad on the Tree (why not ? The early Kabbalists seem to have done that, but via their understanding of cosmology via a different metaphor (yes I see the scientific theory as analogy as well) .

In one of his books, Simeon ben Halevi showed the Tree from various perspectives; including how a car works, (the engine, gears, driver, the whole 'aim' of the vehicle ( to get from a to b a certain way, etc ) ... I think this is quiet valid as in any system that is hermetic, it should be able to be applied to other systems .... that have a ' reality in nature' ( including modern and ancient cosmologies and mythologies) .... so ;

closrapexa said:

Thanks for the explanation and link. Still, I suppose astrology can't be blamed for fudging strict astronomy once in a while, seeing the Sun and Moon as planets. Since I do not (yet) use "strict" astrology but rather semantic connections stemming from mythology, Pluto as a planet still works fine for me. It is also interesting to note that although the same planets may appear on both paths and emanations, their functions differ. Binah's Saturn's "keyword" may be "structure" (simplifying), but it is vastly different from the Universe's Saturn, and I find that fascinating, really, and quite exciting.

Click to expand...

Yes that is a good point to be mindful of.

closrapexa said:

Not to go too off-topic, though, I seem to be having trouble understanding the Leo connection at all. Wands begin with Aries, and it seems proper that they should, although I know not why (a feeling, I guess).

Click to expand...

For me it is because a chart 'starts' at the ascendant ... the first house and that is the position of Aries in a 'Natural Horoscope'; Wands are the 'first suit' and the first three cards of that element relate to Aries ... such a nice fit.

To me it all boils down to the difference between a non-moving 'setting' (or calibration point) - in this case Regulus, and a 'choice' of a 'starting point' in Leo { again connection between Leo - Sun - Golden Dawn ... although as I said; the title suggests ASC ( 0 deg) but the 'start of their zodiac' is at MC (90 deg) } .

closrapexa said:

Even looking beyond the "why," the attributions make sense. Assuming a certain system, can, for example, Completion be anything other than Venus in Aries? It seems such an elegant fit, I would find it hard to not find it making sense.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately many writers on tarot and the GD just repeat it ( the start of the decans is at ... without giving an explanation of WHY it would be considered that way.

The ultimate answer is of course , for a magician (and apparently this came from Grady McMurtry - what a joker ) that if you cant come up with a good explanation .... tell them it is a 'mystery' .

Saturn's the first decan in Leo because that's the attribution given it in Astrolabium Planum, an old astrological book that was influential in the GD. There's a color version of it, the Heidelberger Schicksalsbuch. It's in German, but if you look carefully at the text for each decan you can see which planet is assigned to it. Some of them are obvious, but with a little translation they can all be figured out easily. The old astrologers must've had some reason for assigning them the way they did but I wouldn't have a clue.

The Heidelberger Schicksalsbuch can be downloaded here:

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg832/0176?sid=e9bbaba2d96274b162ad24f8ac59026b

There's a 93mb one and a 340mb one. They're both the same but the larger file has better resolution. Scroll down in the document to find the decans. I think you might be able to view them online; however, the website's in German so I'm not 100% on that.

Moderator Note

Hi folks

I've removed a few posts from this thread that were meta-discussion and not specific to the topic of the thread.

Many thanks
Grigori

Abrac said:

Saturn's the first decan in Leo because that's the attribution given it in the Picatrix, an old Arabic handbook of magic that was influential in the GD. There's a color version of it, the Heidelberger Schicksalsbuch. It's in German, but if you look carefully at the text for each decan you can see which planet is assigned to it. Some of them are obvious, but with a little translation they can all be figured out easily. The old astrologers must've had some reason for assigning them the way they did but I wouldn't have a clue.

Click to expand...

So basically you are saying they just copied that order as that is the order from the Picatrix , but still have no hint as to why it is that way?

I think we already realised about the Picatrix but the WHY .. that's the question isn't it ?

And why it starts where it does.

The only reason I can come up with is gotta start somewhere : horoscopes 'start' at dawn ASC... our New Year starts at MC - Noon (just after the equivalent Summer Solstice) and a Persian Day stars at Sunset (just as ours starts at IC -midnight by time, but by dawn 'naturally') ... I keep coming back to ; its just a choice of where to start in the circle and the numbering of them is relatively insignificant outside of that.

The GD documents offer some explanation though ... its just, I don't find it satisfactory .

I have been looking at this idea (as to why specific decans are associated with certain planets) ;

1) There is some significance do with the ORDERING of the decans that correlates with the Chaldean Order of the planets. It might just be a handy way of numbering them … instead of just 1, 2 ,3 … they could be tagged, a b c or aleph beth , etc or the planetary order . That’s a shot in the dark.

2. The only similar thing I have noticed is that stars are described by giving them the energy of a combination of planets :

EG. Looking at Aries we have Hamal ( Alpha Aries - here the ID code is Greek letters) and other significant stars; Ptolemy ; "The stars in the head of Aries possess an influence similar in its effects to that of Mars and Saturn: those in the mouth act similarly to Mercury, and in some degree to Saturn; those in the hinder foot, to Mars; those in the tail, to Venus."

So perhaps a decan can be described by the mean planetary influence of the stars in the decan … BUT that doesn’t explain the cycling through of the planets in the ‘Chaldean Order’ .

I am sure this is in the info somewhere … we talked about it before in another thread … but, I think only came to the conclusion that the ‘ancients’ DID consider the deacon to have an energy like the planet and it wasn’t just a way of ‘numbering’ them . But I can’t remember who posted that ??? And I don't remember a method of association of planet to decan being offered.

Food for thought: at the northern spring equinox, 614 bce, Baghdad, when the Sun was at the start of constellation Aries and on the local meridian (just after midday), constellation Leo was partly risen and Regulus was in the next decan to rise. (According to SkyMap)

Yes, go on ... feed your thought and tell us what you digest .

ravenest said:

The only reason I can come up with is gotta start somewhere : horoscopes 'start' at dawn ASC... our New Year starts at MC - Noon (just after the equivalent Summer Solstice) and a Persian Day stars at Sunset (just as ours starts at IC -midnight by time, but by dawn 'naturally') ... I keep coming back to ; its just a choice of where to start in the circle and the numbering of them is relatively insignificant outside of that.

Click to expand...

Maybe its as simple as starting with the outermost planet (or the only one attributed to a sphere above the abyss) and then just repeating the tree of life cycle over and over.

I wonder what the purpose of a starting point really is in connection with tarot's application of this, in a system that is cyclic by nature and function. I've never given it more thought than 'It's the place to start when writing everything down' as in application it seems fairly unimportant to me.

I'm not familiar enough to know if the Picatrix has a 'starting point' of note, but the Book T use of it for the minors could be random and be the same for me at least.

The reason I started this thread is, that I don't like to accept things on face value. Blind faith can be a huge trap, as I have experience in my arduous life. I don't like that nagging feeling of doubt after years of dedication, when you don't dare to be so critical anymore because of peer pressure. And that's a real thing.