To Teresa about houses

[Guest guest]

Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:23:40 -0700 (PDT), Teresa Hamilton wrote:

 

>I've tried different house systems over more than 30 years, and have had to

>discard ALL quadrant systems also. I use the " sign as house " chart for some

>purposes, but for planets actually IN HOUSES, I've found that the Indian

>equal house system seems to be the most accurate. That system places the

>Ascendant degree at the center of each house, so each house extends 15

>degrees on either side of that cuspal degree in each sign.

 

Yes, I did use " sign-houses " for a while, too. At that time (about 15

years ago) I had never heard of anybody using them, as I was then

fully incognizant of Vedic Astrology and Western Classical tradition.

However, I developed a rationale for using them on my own and the

system consequently gained followers among some of my colleagues here,

too. Of course, I was using tropical signs, but at times I did feel

that using the " sign-houses " according to the sidereal zodiac might

actually work better; planets within about the last 6º of a tropical

sign/house often seemed to slide into the next " house " . (Maybe

" sign-houses " *do* work better with Sidereal signs, because the vast

majority of astrologers using them in the present-day world practice

Vedic astrology, thus perhaps creating a strong " morphic field "

favoring the sidereal sign division.)

 

Anyway, there is a part of me that still resonates with this concept

of " signs-as-houses " . - I presume you always use sidereal signs,

Teresa?

 

>If a chart has 10

>Taurus rising, for example, then 10 degrees would be the cusp of each house,

>and each house radiates out on both sides from that degree. (The technical

>meaning of CUSP is " peaking point, " not " beginning. " ) Try it. You might be

>surprised at how well that house system works. I use the MC degree, but not

>to mark the 10th house.

 

I have tried this system, but somehow I was not quite satisfied with

the results. But then, in the final analysis I couldn't be satisfied

with any one system. I finally came to a point, where I could not make

up my mind whether to use houses based on the AS (Equal, or

" sign-houses " ) or Meridian houses. I kept switching between them after

every few weeks or months, until I felt pretty schizoid about it all.

Then, I just quit from my attempts to fit everybody and everything

into any one mold. - If it seemed that some charts worked better with

MC-based houses and others with AS-based houses, then let it be so!

So, I finally settled this little dilemma of mine, just admitting to

myself that for some people the primary axis might be the MC/IC, and

for others the primary axis is the AS/DS. Houses based on the MC could

never supplant Equal houses, neither vice versa. Now in practice, I

combine both views, giving a different slant to my interpretation

depending on which system I use as the primary one at a given time

with a given person.

 

One more clarification: when using the Meridian system, I actually

chart the planets in RA along the Equator, with the East Point as the

first cusp. Also, I allow an " orb " of about 7 degrees before the

" cusp " , so that the last degrees of a house already belong to the

field of the next house, with " cusps " marking the most intense areas

within the house - " peaking points " , as you said.

 

Well, all of the views and experiences with different house systems

are a particularly subjective area of astrology, and I am not going to

try to " work anybody over " to see any outstanding excellence about my

" dual system " . It has just come to be something I find useful and

quite eye-opening in practice.

 

Thanks for your comments, Teresa!

 

Risto V

[Guest guest]

Reply to Risto V:

 

Thanks, Risto, for your explanation of your experience with houses. I think

part of the problem of all the different house systems is that different

people have different ideas of what each house means. We have a long way to

go in researching houses as well as everything else astrological. I do use

sign-as-house for some purposes, since I use the Jyotish system. For

example, when two planets are conjunct, it's important which houses they rule.

 

Yes, I use only Sidereal signs, though I interpret them differently than

most sidereal astrologers. But that's another big area of discussion. I was

a Tropical astrologer for 10 years (mid 60s to mid 70s).

 

>So, I finally settled this little dilemma of mine, just admitting to

>myself that for some people the primary axis might be the MC/IC, and

>for others the primary axis is the AS/DS.

 

Every person is an individual. It stands to reason that only one way of

looking at a chart wouldn't fit everyone. Edgar Cayce said that 20 percent

of horoscopes wouldn't fit at all because the owners used their will power

to go beyond astrological influences.

 

>One more clarification: when using the Meridian system, I actually

>chart the planets in RA along the Equator, with the East Point as the

>first cusp. Also, I allow an " orb " of about 7 degrees before the

> " cusp " , so that the last degrees of a house already belong to the

>field of the next house, with " cusps " marking the most intense areas

>within the house - " peaking points " , as you said.

 

Have you published any articles on this? I would be interesting in seeing

how this applies to actual horoscopes. I have only a partial understanding

of what you are doing.

 

I'll be off this site for awhile. I'm leaving on a two or three week

vacation, just when discussions here are getting interesting. I'll check in

later this month. I've enjoyed your contributions, Risto.

 

Sincerely,

Teresa