Paranatellontas

[Guest guest]

<<Which techniques did you try, and how did they fail?>>

 

--The one I remember most is the progressed sidereal solar return, which I

spent a lot of time programming in the computer and which I tried for some

time, pinpointing the days when one of the transiting or radical planets

was on the angles of the PSSR. I never got anything that could convince me

of their validity.

 

When I learned about this mailing list, I felt this was the opportunity to

learn from others who have experience and to put myself to work on this

matter, and fill the gaps. However, I must say I have never felt it

necessary to use sidereal signs, probably because I rely on signs very

little when interpreting charts.

 

 

<<I've heard of tropicalists who correct for precession -- which is great!

-- but what's a " paranatellonta " ? (I've heard of parans, so I'm assuming

this may involve them.)

 

--I always work precession-corrected. " Paran " is short for

" Paranatellonta " , which is the original Greek word.

 

 

  Quote

What PARANATELLONTA Means: (9/58 " Solunars, " Cyril Fagan)

" If two or more planets or fixed stars bodily rise or set simultaneously,

or come to the Midheaven or Nadir together, or if one crosses any of the

angular cusps while another is also crossing an angle, then each is said to

be the paranatellonta of the other. These paranatellontas constitute the

most powerful configurations in prognostic astronomy, and even a beginner

should be able to see why this should be so. Paranatellonta is a Greek

word signifying " acting simultaneously, " but it is such a long and

difficult-to-pronounce word, let us hereafter abbreviate it to PARAN, say

" per-ran " for convenience. "

[END QUOTE]

 

Juan

[Guest guest]

>Breck Breckenridge

+Let's see if I've got this. Using my own chart, would my Moon and Pluto

be in PARAN, if Moon were at/conjunct the Ascendant, and Pluto conjunct the

I.C.?

 

Yes. But only if the *real* Pluto and the *real* Moon are found there. What

you see in the chart is only the projection of a point of the sphere upon

the ecliptic. In the real world, Pluto can be well below the horizon even

though you are seeing it above the horizon in the chart. Parans are

calculated with the " mundane " position, not with ecliptic positions (the

same as astro-cartography points).

 

Additionally, they don't have to be exactly on the angles to form a paran;

all that is needed is that they are mutually equidistant from either one of

the angles, so that they would reach the angle at the same time, or within

1 or 2 minutes. To do this you measure the distance in oblique ascension

and express it in time-units. For example, here is a listing of such

distances from my program Riyal:

 

2h46.2 Ven a

2h49.2 Mer a

3h50.1 Ura i

3h54.6 Plu i

3h54.9 Sun a

 

Here " a " is the distance from the ascendant, " i " from the I.C. Pluto is

3h55m from the IC, and the Sun is 3h55m from the Ascendant. They are the

paranatellonta of each other, i.e., they form a " paran " . This is the same

approach used with fixed stars, where their ecliptical or zodiacal

longitude is not used.

 

In my experience, parans are most revealing in the charts of events.

 

Juan

[Guest guest]

Boy! Juan. I'm already lost! I guess I'm either getting old or just set.

But that's too much work for me (i.e. how to understand and use the paran).

 

At 10:34 PM 12/12/1999 -0600, you wrote:

>jar (Juan Revilla)

>

>>Breck Breckenridge

>+Let's see if I've got this. Using my own chart, would my Moon and Pluto

>be in PARAN, if Moon were at/conjunct the Ascendant, and Pluto conjunct the

>I.C.?

>

>Yes. But only if the *real* Pluto and the *real* Moon are found there. What

>you see in the chart is only the projection of a point of the sphere upon

>the ecliptic. In the real world, Pluto can be well below the horizon even

>though you are seeing it above the horizon in the chart. Parans are

>calculated with the " mundane " position, not with ecliptic positions (the

>same as astro-cartography points).

>

>Additionally, they don't have to be exactly on the angles to form a paran;

>all that is needed is that they are mutually equidistant from either one of

>the angles, so that they would reach the angle at the same time, or within

>1 or 2 minutes. To do this you measure the distance in oblique ascension

>and express it in time-units. For example, here is a listing of such

>distances from my program Riyal:

>

>2h46.2 Ven a

>2h49.2 Mer a

>3h50.1 Ura i

>3h54.6 Plu i

>3h54.9 Sun a

>

>Here " a " is the distance from the ascendant, " i " from the I.C. Pluto is

>3h55m from the IC, and the Sun is 3h55m from the Ascendant. They are the

>paranatellonta of each other, i.e., they form a " paran " . This is the same

>approach used with fixed stars, where their ecliptical or zodiacal

>longitude is not used.

>

>In my experience, parans are most revealing in the charts of events.

>

>Juan

>

>> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

>Shortcut URL to this page:

> /community/

>

>