Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.astrology,alt.pagan.magick Subject: Planetary Sequences in History and Occultism References: <3F5A8544.939A291E@yahoo-dot.ca> <3F63C75E.3050508@cox.SPAMnet> <3F6B0A35.61451E83@pacbell.net> <3F76C9B0.3D89CA79@pacbell.net> From: nagasiva Reply-To: spam@luckymojo.com User-Agent: nn/6.6.0 Lines: 223 Message-ID: <8V%gb.29276$dk4.842022@typhoon.sonic.net> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:08:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1065650884 208.201.242.18 (Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:08:04 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:08:04 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:41618 alt.magick:358033 alt.tarot:119241 alt.divination:22194 alt.astrology:516601 alt.pagan.magick:38873 50031008 viii om -- responding to myself cuz nobody kept playing with me :> Joseph Littleshoes : #> 0=whatever #> 1=mercury #> 2=venus #> 3=earth #> etc. etc. this is what was done, apparently, by Greeks or Chaldeans, (minus the 0) and based on terracentric (what I like to call 4-centered) mean motion (apparent motility as seen from Terra/Earth). 7-6-5-1-3-2-M not by spatial location but motility Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Sun-Venus-Mercury-Moon scientific materialists and heliocentrics revised it to 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-M-3-2-1 (or 10-9-8-7-6-5-M-4-3-2-1) by spatial location and demoting M to a satellie and promoting 1 to a star. I leave 1 a number because it is the center around which all these numbers are revolving, whereas M is actually revolving around 4, and if we were going to include other M's around the other #s we'd be in for a slough of them! :> Pluto-Neptune-Uranus-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Earth-Moon-Venus-Mercury-Sun #> or leave earth out and give either the moon or mars the #> 3rd number, though im more comftorble giverning the #> moon 3, earth 4 and mars 5. I still like 1=Sun, 2=Merc, 3=Venus, 4=Earth, M=Moon, 5=Mars, etc. nagasiva: # ...I haven't found any justification for the Sequence of # the Ancients.... if this is the 'Chaldean Order of the Planets', then there appears to be a rationale in the motility of the planets as compared with Terra as described above. here's the scientific chart I found online that has its details: from Planets, houses, and signs by Pam Ciampi http://www.pciampi-astrology.com/planets.html # Moon takes 28-30 days to orbit the Earth # Mercury - 88 days # Venus - 225 days # Sun - 365 days "apparent motion" # Mars - 1.88 years # Jupiter - 11.86 years # Saturn - 29.46 years # Uranus - 84.08 years # Neptune - 164.8 years # Pluto - 248.4 years so this justifies the order from a scientific basis, empirical even. there has been some conjecture in cyberspace I've run across that says that this is not "Chaldean" at all but is instead Greek, Hellenistic. magic squares in Agrippa: # 3x3=Saturn # 4x4=Jupiter # 5x5=Mars # 6x6=Sun # 7x7=Venus # 8x8=Mercury # 9x9=Moon same as Neoplatanic sphere sequence and kamea sequence, the latter presumably based on the others. # Ancients Sequence (usually starts with Moon) # Sun / Mars / Jupiter / Saturn / Moon / Mercury / Venus the Moon-start seems to be a sphero-centric convention (see below) revised/reversed for traditional outward-to-terracentric order: 'Chaldean Order of the Planets' (usually starts with Saturn) Saturn / Jupiter / Mars / Sun / Venus / Mercury / Moon compare the pre-Copernican sphere-cosmos: Primum Mobile, Zodiac, then Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, then Elemental and this all looks pretty related. # Weekday Sequence (usually starts with Sun) # Sun / Moon / Mars / Mercury / Jupiter / Venus / Saturn this seems consistent and may derive from *tables* rather than a strict septagram. # Nigris Sequence (usually starts with Mercury) # Sun / Mercury / Saturn / Mars / Venus / Moon / Jupiter this could be revised to: Nigris Sequence (starts with Mercury cuz I say so :>) Mercury / Saturn / Mars / Venus / Moon / Jupiter / Sun or should it go like this? Mercury / Sun / Jupiter / Moon / Venus / Mars / Saturn anyone seen this somewhere before other than on Divination Web? :> I still think I get to claim it since I named it! that said, I do think I may have found it in one of the Agrippan tables (this may have been Tyson or I may be misremembering, I'll look and followup!). # are there any other logical *or* traditional Planetary Sequences # that occultists use or have used? this is what I've been looking up lately while examining decans and faces in astrology as it derives from Agrippa and integrates to Tarotic tradition. the 'decans' apparently derive from various contexts and some (e.g. Egyptian?) are called 'faces' elsewhere. the whole is apparently a somewhat confused and confusing history in astrology! # these could be mapped to sephiroth (as traditional, or novelly) # straight through to the false Da'ath, and they can be applied # in some series to the tarotic Trumps. here's a quote which pertains and may inspire substantive-chat: quoting from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mithras/message/773 john.wallace writes: # Otto Neugebauer's The Exact Sciences in Antiquity # (I highly recommend it). All kinds of good info but # pertinent to your search for planetary orders I refer # you to Neugebauer's chapter entitled "Origin and # Transmission of Hellenistic Science", especially p. 169. # # He states that the earliest horoscopes in Egypt date # to the time of Augustus and says the spread of astrology # in general dates from this time period (p. 168). # # As for the planetary orders the standard sequence in # the Seleucid cuneiform texts is: # # Jupiter-Venus-Mercury-Saturn-Mars and I respond here: as Jupiter-Venus-Mercury I don't see how it can compare with the Triple-Set I outlined above ('Chaldean'/Weekday/'Nigris') and I'm still looking for some evidence that I wasn' the first to identify the third sequence in derivation from the first 2. # (the reason is "unknown"); the standard Greek horoscope # order is: # # Sun-Moon-Saturn-Jupiter-Mars-Venus-Mercury # # (this follows the planets perceived depth per their # periods of sidereal rotation); this is almost the same as the 'Chaldean Planetary Order', transposing Sun/Moon to the front for some reason. Saturn / Jupiter / Mars / Sun / Venus / Mercury / Moon does this commentary of "perceived depth" make any sense? or is this confusion on top of motility-astronomy? # and finally points out # that our current seven day week is a modification of # this plan based on a scheme that assigns the planets # to the 24 hours of the day: # # Sun-Moon-Mars-Mercury-Jupiter-Venus-Saturn # (p. 169). this seems to imply that Neugebauer *really* means the 'Chaldean Order of the Planets' / 'Order of the Ancients', by which the Weekday Sequence might be derived, but with the passage of centuries, many variations may have been derived/constructed/fabricated. # ...Neugebauer does make this interesting comment regarding # the Hellenistic planetary orders: # # "Here we have a system which is obviously # Greek in origin and not only because it # is based on the arrangement of the celestial # bodies according to their distances from the # earth but also it supposes a division of the # day into 24 hours, a form of reckoning which # is not Babylonian but a Hellenistic product # of ultimately Egyptian origin. It is totally # misleading when this origin is called # 'Chaldean' in modern literature" (pp 169-170). here's why I have now called 'Chaldean' rather than knowing for sure that this is true. how does this compare with the 'Chaldean Oracles' which are supposed to be the Oracles of Zoroaster? is any of this really related to the people who are being described? or is it a later paste-over by Greeks or others in order to give them a semblance of age/authority? # But didn't the Graeco-Romans themselves *assume* this # information was "Chaldean"...? I do find it interesting # that astrology takes off in earnest following the Julian # Calendar reforms and that both the person behind the # reforms (Sosogines) and the planetary order of the # seven day week have Egyptian origins.... the fact that there are 3 different astrological modes in which we may explain "decans/faces" (Egyptian/Chaldean/Greek) makes this all the more confusing and interesting! does anyone have a clear explanation? thanks! nagasiva