Transit Orbs

[Ken Haining]

Hi All.

I know that there are no hard and fast transit orb rules, but I was wondering what some of you thought in terms of when a transiting planet is within orb.  Robert Hand advocates the idea of the faster movers, particularly the Sun and Mars, and sometimes Mercury, acting as trigger planets for the transits of slow moving planets.  For example, if Neptune in 25 degees Aquarius was squaring a major point on a Natal chart, and Mars then moved into aspect with that same planet, that would "trigger" the Neptune transit. 

However, at what point would we consider a slow moving planet to be within sufficient orb of aspecting a Natal planet to be subject to being "triggered" by the Sun, Mars, or Mercury?

I realize that not everyone will subscribe to Hand's theory on the trigger planets, but the general question that I am asking is about orbs, and what your experience has been with them. 

What I find particularly intriguing is the time when a slow moving planet is moving off an aspect.  At what point does it cease to have an effect?  Grant Lewi said that the greatest effect was for two degees before and two degrees after the exact aspect, but used the broader orbs to denote more general effects. 

I would be curious as to what your thoughts are on this subject.  Thanks in advance for your answers.

Ken

[Ray Murphy]

Hi All.

I know that there are no hard and fast transit orb rules, but I was wondering what some of you thought in terms of when a transiting planet is within orb.  Robert Hand advocates the idea of the faster movers, particularly the Sun and Mars, and sometimes Mercury, acting as trigger planets for the transits of slow moving planets.  For example, if Neptune in 25 degees Aquarius was squaring a major point on a Natal chart, and Mars then moved into aspect with that same planet, that would "trigger" the Neptune transit. 

However, at what point would we consider a slow moving planet to be within sufficient orb of aspecting a Natal planet to be subject to being "triggered" by the Sun, Mars, or Mercury?

I realize that not everyone will subscribe to Hand's theory on the trigger planets, but the general question that I am asking is about orbs, and what your experience has been with them. 

What I find particularly intriguing is the time when a slow moving planet is moving off an aspect.  At what point does it cease to have an effect?  Grant Lewi said that the greatest effect was for two degrees before and two degrees after the exact aspect, but used the broader orbs to denote more general effects. 

I would be curious as to what your thoughts are on this subject.  Thanks in advance for your answers.

Ken

Hi Ken,

I've spent an inordinate amount of time during the last few decades looking
at transits in charts for rectification purposes, and this includes looking at the
output of various automated research programs, and my conclusion was that
the vast majority of transits 'work' with a 2.5 degree orb in the shape of bell
curve - (with the majority working closer to exactness - but very rarely exact).

The triggers by inner planets that Rob hand referred to, are there alright, but
I haven't noticed many of them working when the outer planets were more than
about 2.5 degrees from exactness. Still that may have more to do with the way
I approach astrology than anything else. I see the triggers as simply key dates
in the larger transit - and they can tell us what that larger transit is about if
we couldn't see it beforehand.

I found that the triggers can sometimes work when they are (apparently) well
out of orb - because they are sometimes a part of a pair that is straddling a
conjunction. For example we might be ready to start watching what happens
when VEN is con ASC and then Mars con Asc a few weeks later, but the midpoint
of that pair could be straddling the Asc for several days.

I'm convinced that Mars can easily work up to 6 degrees from exactness - either
as a stand alone aspect to the Angles (con + opp) or as a trigger by con + opp,
but I've reached no similar answer for wide orbs with any other Mars aspects.
The Sun has always seemed like a pretty weak trigger to me - so much so that
I removed it from my rectification program - but Mercury, Venus and Mars are
very active, but astrologers won't see it until they start looking at ALL events
that were somehow "important on the day"

I also occasionally use the transiting Asc and MC as triggers for predictive work
(conjunctions only) but that's also for small transits. For example if a person had
a MAR con ASC transit and I knew they would be in a certain situation during a
few hours, and the tran ASC became con Mars during that time, I will occasionally
mention it and also mention the increased potential for a connected Mar-Asc event
to occur then - or possibly BE the main event. I think though, that this sort of thing
shouldn't be done unless it feels right and you want to keep your 'hit rate' up :-)
I'm not sure it's ESP when I say it 'feels right'. I think it's more a case of knowing
what's in the chart and also the person's life, but not being able to rationally
explain WHY it feels right - a bit like driving a car without eing able to explain every
move you make

Ray

[Noel Tyl]

Good discussion!  Thank you.


My experience mirrors Ray's presentation, and what more guidance do we need?

I would suggest we remember that relating the horoscope activity to the reality experience and potential of the client in any given moment of time is far more important than looking for a supposedly causative exactness from measurements.  People do things, not planets; the measurements guide us into the practical dimensions being  processed by the client.

Indeed, there are sharp surprises and startling time coincidences, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Noel Tyl

[Ken Haining]

Hi Noel.

You said:

"People do things, not planets; the measurements guide us into the practical dimensions being  processed by the client."

I can understand the problem with people wanting their chart to "do something," rather than do something themselves.  There are those transits that simply indicate different opportunities or challenges to a person, and nothing much happens if they do nothing with those transits.  However, there are also those elements of life that are beyond our control, and which, many times, transits do indicate. 

For example, we have all seen people in difficult straits who have performed admirably, yet things still go against them.  On the other hand, we have seen people who have royally screwed up things, yet, as indicated by favorable transits, they not only land on their feet, they "luck out," and end up in better circumstances than before.

We have all missed opportune times, even those of us who are aware of the times via astrology.  But there are some transits that are going to have a major effect, regardless of the action or inaction of the person under those transits.  At least, that is what I have seen.

I think it is easier to measure the effect of orbs when we are looking at those transits that have an overwhelming effect irrespective of a person's actions.  In the case of missed opportunities, or failure to successfully struggle against difficult times, there is the factor of the person not doing what is best for them to do.  However, some transits are just there, so to speak.  For example, someone could develop a medical condition that they could not have prevented, and that they did not cause.  Or, someone could come into money that they did not earn, or do anything to obtain. 

I suppose you could spend quite a lot of time determining which types of transits denote effects that are not directly related to the action or inaction of someone under those transits, and those transits that present opportunities, but not compulsion, to action.   

Just some thoughts on the matter.
Ken

[Lopaka]

As pointed out there are no hard and fast rules. However I tend to be rather conservative in my approach and limit transiting, progressed and directed aspects to about 2 degrees. If there are special circumstances, such as luminaries carrying the lignt, I may expand the orb by a couple of derees. But in all I would rather miss an influential aspect that wornk with too many for which there is no justification.

In this regard, I am discouraged by the tendency to expand influential planets/points/aspects/etc. If we add too many points we will always find something that will support anything we look for. Accordingly, I do not use asteroids, the vertex, the arabic parts, and I limit my use of the Lunar nodes. I do not say that they do not apply,only that by looking too hard we will always find something, anything, to support our opinion, particulary if we look at them after the fact.

Unfortunately, even after millenia Astrology remains a fringe study. It will only become accepted  as a rigorous science if it adopts rigor; a tendancy that expansion of significant points defeats. I would prefer to establish a sound foundation rather than start with an over generous set of points and then try to winnow out the irrelevant.

"But that's just my opinion. I may be wrong." -Dennis Miller

[Don Borkowski]

Lopaka:

Yes, yes, yes.  I annoyed a number of people when I said that if you stuck enough asteroids in a chart, you could prove that the Pacific Ocean was made of orange juice.

With my bachelor's degree in statistics, I am always compelled to ascertain what is important and what is not.

Thank you for tendering your opinion.

Don

[Ray Murphy]

Lopaka:

Yes, yes, yes.  I annoyed a number of people when I said that if you stuck enough asteroids in a chart, you could prove that the Pacific Ocean was made of orange juice.

With my bachelor's degree in statistics, I am always compelled to ascertain what is important and what is not.

Thank you for tendering your opinion.

Don

In Geoffrey Dean's magnificent (technical) book "Recent advances in
natal astrology" which had contributions from many of the biggest
names in astrology, there is an article on the theoretical "super-chart"
which has a printout 20,000 miles long - thus allowing anything at all
to be found in charts with great clarity.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Hello Ken,

Glad you're back!

Good questions as always...

After having read all the comments (so far), I resonate most closely to Lopaka's comments ("winnow out the irrelevant", yeah, Baby), though the 2° is way too wide (imo).

Upon looking at other systems (specifically Topocentric Primary Directions and the PSSR), it can be seen that MAJOR events... the big life-changers...are, in fact, fated events.  The client's reality experience of it is often mutually exclusive.  The aspects mature in just MINUTES OF ARC.  At major events, there is a super-accumulation of symbolically correct aspects with tiny orbs and a cross-corroboration from other systems.  It may very well be that using transits, solar arcs, and progressions leaves a large grey area, where being set straight by the client might be an absolute necessity. 

As examples,

When my Father died, there were the following aspects:  (ALL under 0° 11')



It would NOT take an astrological mastermind, psychic abilities, intuition, NOR any corroboration from me to have been able to see just WHEN this event would happen.

When my Mother died, there were the following aspects:  (ALL under 0° 11')



Again, 10 years before the event....knowing nothing about me, except that I had a Mother that COULD die, the astrologer would still have no trouble "seeing" what would happen and when it would happen.

When I got married, there were the following aspects:  (ALL under 0° 11')



I don't bring this up to underscore that Transits, Progressions, and Solar Arcs are the smaller half of the picture, but in order to show that many events in life (ie. the big ones!) ARE shown quite clearly and, despite everyone from Evangeline Adams on down having softened the "fate" idea with "free will" humanist touches, MUCH OF LIFE IS FATED.  In mathematical terms, as the magnitude (of the event in life) increases, the ability of the client to influence it to go differently approaches ZERO.

I am sorry if that offends anyone, though I am positive that it is so.  (I have seen too many events from too many charts that show super-accumulations of appropriate aspects with tiny orbs for it to not be indicative of FATE)

Now, back to the topic, orbs for transits...it seems that most RELEVANT transits will be picked up connected to events with an orb just over 1° or so.  Part of the problem inherent in this is trying to use a relatively "sloppy" system (transits) to gain time-specificity.  (ie. if your thermometer has no accurate markings on it, you can look at it all day and still have no idea of the temperature)

Remember that many of the greatest astrologers of antiquity, who made some amazingly accurate predictions, were often using Primary Directions.  If they could have done this with Transits, Etc., they WOULD have saved themselves from many a mathematically prompted headache!  In those days, often, a few wrong predictions, or even one important wrong one could mean that the astrologer's head and his body were suddenly in two different places.  They HAD to find something that WORKED.  Quite often that was Primary Directions.

Why so few that use Primary Directions now?

1) They're not easy, compared to Transits, Progressions, and Solar Arcs.

2) They require an accurate birthtime.  ie. ONLY rectifications (which require WORK), not cleverly articulated rectiFICTIONs.

3) Our clients of today are much less demanding.  (ie. they won't cut our heads off when we are wrong and they're mostly not averse to playing 20 questions, so we can backfill what we are unable to see with what we are able to hear)   

I sincerely hope that many more astrologers of today take a look into these other systems.  I can only thank Isaac Starkman immensely for waking me from a very deep sleep that I didn't even know I had been taking....

Peace

OD'dOnLifeItself

[Ray Murphy]

Hello Ken,

Glad you're back!

Good questions as always...

After having read all the comments (so far), I resonate most closely to Lopaka's comments ("winnow out the irrelevant", yeah, Baby), though the 2° is way too wide (imo).

Hi Gentlemen and OD'd,
(just kidding)

It would be fairly easy to find out what orb was present if ordinary transits were (when judged by vote) to be either relevant or not relevant to events, and if the angular separations were graphed with minor increments of 1, 5 or 10 mins of arc.

Upon looking at other systems (specifically Topocentric Primary Directions and the PSSR), it can be seen that MAJOR events... the big life-changers...are, in fact, fated events.  The client's reality experience of it is often mutually exclusive.  The aspects mature in just MINUTES OF ARC.  At major events, there is a super-accumulation of symbolically correct aspects with tiny orbs and a cross-corroboration from other systems.  It may very well be that using transits, solar arcs, and progressions leaves a large grey area, where being set straight by the client might be an absolute necessity. 

As examples,

When my Father died, there were the following aspects:  (ALL under 0° 11')

[examples left out - visible above]

I feel certain that many astrologers would be quite disappointed if they saw how easy it is to get multiple hits like that. I know I was when I first began developing programs to process data to answer questions of that nature; in fact years later I'm still being disappointed each time I dream up my latest brilliant idea, but the good news is that it's not 1 step forward an 2 steps back -- it's something like the reverse of it - 4 forward and 3 back.

Ray

[Ray Murphy]

[......]Unfortunately, even after millenia Astrology remains a fringe study. It will only become accepted  as a rigorous science if it adopts rigor; a tendancy that expansion of significant points defeats. I would prefer to establish a sound foundation rather than start with an over generous set of points and then try to winnow out the irrelevant.
[.....]

If I limit my comments to the astrology I'm most familiar with - tropical, there's
really two types of astrology - the one that we all know well, which was based
on reality and expanded greatly by some brilliant men who devised rules to help
all astrologers think and communicate effectively - much like the Chinese medicine
men did in ancient times. Today modern astrologers are doing the same thing as
traditional Chinese medicine practitioners are doing - quite effectively in many
cases - using a strange 'language' to help organise our thoughts and see many
real patterns.

Then we have the other type of astrology that is actually science - but it's still
in its infancy - presumably because astrologers have figured out along the way
that it was going nowhere with the tools that were available until a few decades
ago. It has the same core as normal astrology, but I find it hard to imagine that
scientific astrology could be used for readings - well not at this end of the century
anyway. It could however be used quite easily to improve normal astrology in ways
that do not interfere with the solid rules (real or artificial) that hold astrology together.

Ray

[amymaddalozzo]

what I ahve heard is that transiting pluto tends to work  later but transiting neptune  tends to work earlier  I don't know if that is true but maybe some one else can verify it.  When my Dad died, my SP  sun was closely sextile my 8th house venus, which rules my 10th house but there were a host of negative transits--transitng neptune, saturn were both  aspecting the mc/ic natal axis and transiting jupiter was widely opposed my natal moon which rules my 8th house  Dad died of cancer--hard death  Mom died 11/2/2009 when a full moon  in taurus/scorpio and transiting mars in leo hit my natal venus in leo in the 8th house  Transiting jupiter  also  opposed pluto in leo in the 8th and transiting uranus in pisces formed 135 degree aspects to  natal venus/mars  Mom had a stroke and her death was more sudden  (By the way, SP moon was aspecting natal neptune )

[Ken Haining]

ODd said:

"After having read all the comments (so far), I resonate most closely to Lopaka's comments ("winnow out the irrelevant", yeah, Baby), though the 2° is way too wide (imo)."

Hi ODd.  Good to see you hanging around also.

What do you think about a general effect of a transit, with a wider orb, as opposed to a culminating event or action?  In other words, when a transiting planet moves into 2 degrees of aspecting a signifcant point on a chart, particularly a slow moving planet, there may be a general condition that arises.  For example, someone develops an illness.  At the peak of the transit it could be the person has an operation and recovers, or perhaps they die.  

I am sure there are other scenarios that could be mentioned, but you get the idea.  Have any feedback on that?

Ken

[pdw]

Interesting discussion, All. 

I don't carry around astreroids or 'FATE' in my personal astrology toolbox; but some folks do.  A fact that fulfills a notion that I do carry around:  Astrology is both all inclusive and very personal. 

I think the cold weather must be wearing on me because I got the idea today that an orb is like throwing a cast net.  If you come up empty in one spot you move on to the next one - or wait.       

[Alice Portman]

It is not 'orb', it is a matter of flow.

Once a planet starts transiting a natal position it both energises and sensitises that point.  From the moment of the first transit to the end of that transit the point is active, regardless as to whether the transiting planet moves four or five degrees away from an exact activation.

Any faster moving planet and/or lunation that activates that point in that time period will be a trigger.

This is best seen if you use a graphic ephemeris as that shows the flow of all planets.

Attached is a graphic ephemeris I have prepared for a talk I am giving tomorrow.  It doesn't show natal planets but does show trigger points and so is suitable for illustration.

Alice McDermott

[Lura]

pdw,

don't you ever give up on FATE.  I'm right there beside you.  I thought I would never return, but I realize you are the truest friend I know.