why aren't angles, nodes included in configurations?

Astrologers' Community

Help Support Astrologers' Community:

madame moon

Active member
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
39
Something I don't understand is the belief that natal configurations aren't valid unless they include planets only. Why would that be, when the angles themselves are critical in importance, along with sun/moon in chart interpretation? And why wouldn't the nodes be included, since they are also so important in the natal chart?

It doesn't seem logical to me. What do you think?
 
energy and lack of energy, to moon

moon,

You said:
Something I don't understand is the belief that natal configurations aren't valid unless they include planets only. Why would that be, when the angles themselves are critical in importance, along with sun/moon in chart interpretation? And why wouldn't the nodes be included, since they are also so important in the natal chart?

I think of this in terms of energy. Planets have energy, so they count in aspect patterns. Points don't have energy, so they don't count in aspect patterns. The only exception I make is for the nodes, since nodes have MOVEMENT (e.g., moving South to North, balancing out South and North, etc.). So I include nodes in aspect patterns.

Aspectfully,

Tim
 
They are important, but they aren't physical bodies like the planets are. Perhaps that's why?
That's why.

Planets can and do aspect the Nodes
Planets can and do aspect the Angles

Neither the Nodes nor the Angles
are physical bodies so they cannot aspect :smile:
 
I agree that the nodes are very important but I dont quite know what you mean by configurations? Angles are the bones of the chart but there has to be planets attached to them for any influence really or the ruler has to be taken into account. However if you are talking transits then the nodes do not progress or transit as some will have you believe.
 
That's why.

Planets can and do aspect the Nodes
Planets can and do aspect the Angles

Neither the Nodes nor the Angles
are physical bodies so they cannot aspect :smile:

I would say that is so for the angles. Angles don't 'do' stuff, fulfil an active role.

However, some astrologers do consider the nodes to 'cast' aspects, at least in certain schools of Indian astrological thought that I am familiar with.

Personally, for now, I go with the idea that Rahu 'casts' aspects, but Ketu does not.
 
My outlook re to the Nodes is that they influence by sign/house placement and that planets (or stars) in Parallel or longitudinal (close) conjunction are affected by them (as are cusps and Lots, by Parallel or conjunction) I also strongly believe in transit effects of the Nodes (again, only by conjunction or Parallel); however, I do not consider that Nodes either cast or receive aspects (technically the Parallel and the conjunction are not "aspects")
 
I was going to ask something similar myself so I am glad I found this thread.

I understand that the angles and nodes aren't technically planets, but if a planet is aspecting THEM would a configuration (i.e. grand trine, grand cross) still not hold true?

For example, In my chart I have pluto trine the NN/MC, and then NN trine MC which would create a grand water trine. however its not considered a grand trine because the MC is an angle and the NN is not a planet. but the influence is still felt in that pattern. So couldn't there be a possibility that the configuration still exists in the chart? since pluto aspects both, and then NN as mentioned before does "move".
 
If I understand your discussion properly, I do think nodes can receive aspects - for instance, if your Node is in the 7th house (your life goal includes spiritual growth and transformation through relationships) and Mercury and Venus are in strong square to the Node, then you ability to achieve that goal (spiritual growth) is hampered by your own thoughts (mercury) and beliefs and values (venus). You will need to change your thoughts and values in order to satisfy that goal. If the node is right on the 7th cusp, then that goal is doubly important and the ruler of that house is a key element to satisfying that goal. Let's say Mars is the ruler of that house, and Mars does not aspect Node but it does make a strong square to Pluto - then releasing control of relationships and situations is the key to satisfying the goal.

I also use transits of the Node as they indicate modifications or influences that affect your life goal and where you must adapt to achieve that goal, or where something may occur to assist you this goal - heaven-sent help. I've seen the correlations in my own chart very strongly.
 
I never really payed that much attention to nodes till the use rahu mentioned them to me. I've been paying much more attention.

I guess where I got confused was.. the node can "receive" but can it "send" so... one could say pluto is trine my mc, and it seems like one could say my Node trines my mc as well. but from what I'm reading previously i got confused. obviously the MC isn't sending to the NN but there is still an aspect made, some kind of energy felt. I would feel that it would be similar. If we can make interpretations off of ASC/MC aspects between planets (aspects being energy stuffs) why do they not play a part in configurations as well? I guess I understand the technical reason why not, but intuitively I am being stubborn about it.

Can the node itself make aspects to other angles and planets? it seems like it should since the NN in transit to planets in the natal chart are felt, so why isn't able to be considered in the natal chart as well? because its not a planet or celestial body technically?

I wanted to start my own thread to ask about my own aspect configurations in my own chart dealing with the natal NN and angles, but didn't want to start creating duplicate threads.

I guess I'm just confused now haha.
 
we are all guided by our view of reality. Most accept that deductive reasoning is the modern and scientific way to go.
Deductive reasoning leads us to the superiority of matter over “points” or abstraction.
But as no one has defined the dynamic by which astrology works deductively, so I don’t see how deductive reasoning can tell what doesn’t work.
The most efficient correct theory of physics, quantum theory, deductively sees matter as simply a functions of underlying quantum energies. matter is not primary, it is a secondary reflection of reality.
So since matter is but a “node” of quantum interference patterns, then it seem logical that nodes, Points where energy systems intersect could also can have an effect.
A magnetic field can affect reality, yet there is no physical connection .
Planets don’t have energy, they have mass. There energy was put into the rotational motion that moves the planet in its orbit. With no orbit a planet would have no energy. When we start making philosophical statements with incomplete deductive reasoning, potential advances can be missed.
If we are truly scientifically minded, then we should base our analogys on the most exact and accurate scientific theories.
It is equally myopic to say node don’t aspect. nodes aspect regularly in natals, mundane and composites, bi and multi. I wouldn’t be able to make predicts or review the past with out them
I back engineered my view as I did much more research with the node than I did reading about the node.the node is dynamic and I give examples of it’s effect by transit and aspects in some of my readings.the primacy of the nodes is censored by modern astrological establishment. The attempt is to “spiritualize” the node so that one is not looking for immediate affects in your reality. Only those who have not studied the nodal transits or those extending the astrological censorship could say the node does not affect by transit or aspects etc.
I I had believed the pablum that is published on the node, I be searching this forum for continuity like everyone else.
So hang in there madame moon
You might check node and and reality thread
rahu

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63539
 
Last edited:
I actually think of north node being the magnetic energy that pulls surrounding energy together when in contact while south node being the pushing force to separate like two opposition magnets working against when in contact.
 
I was wrestling with this question a month ago!

The question came about when I realized that my south node would complete a grand sextile in my chart. I never realized this... in years and years of analysis. Didn't considerate it. I had read that the nodes, vertex and asteroids aren't particularly relevant when 'unattached'. I finally decided, YES, my SN does indeed create a grand sextile.

My north node is conjunct Venus (1 degree orb), which of course brings huge weight to my north node. My Venus is also involved in a grand trine, which is also a kite.

So, my vote is that the rule should be that a planet 1) NEEDS to be attached to one of the nodes by conjunction/opposition, and 2) the said planet or planets must make bigger aspects within the chart.
 
Back
Top