A s t r o l o g y - Mandala

Bron: Leigh Westin, The Other Dimension, NCGR Declination SIG Newsletter - Volume 6, No.3, Autumn 2001; published here with the permission of Leigh Westin.

Recently I was asked to explain the three parallel aspects mentioned by Charles Jayne in the second chapter of his treatise, Declination, the Hidden Aspect.
Charles Jayne was a brilliant and greatly respected astrologer, but this was not an easy passage to understand.
For some the letter identification, B, A and E might have been confusing because of the normal inclination to associate value with alphabetical order.
However, Jayne chose the letters for an entirely different reason.

• The 'B' parallel referred to a Bodily parallel.
• The 'A' to a parallel by Antiscion in celestial longitude
• The 'E', a parallel by Ecliptic, again in celestial longitude.

To understand ecliptic intercept or 'EI' as Jayne referred to it, one must acknowledge the relationship between declination and celestial longitude and that they can be equated.
It seems to be forgotten that the celestial coordinates such as declination, right ascension, celestial longitude and latitude, are measurements devised to describe the view of the heavens that we have from Earth by man, rather than being edits from God; and for that reason to some the idea of equating declination and celestial longitude is crossing a perceived-to-be forbidden boundary between the equatorial and ecliptic systems.
But this is simply not thinking through the reason the two systems exist.

One of the most important bodies we use all the time, the Sun, has only these two coordinates, declination and celestial longitude; and when considered together, the Sun itself actually crosses that perceived-to-be-forbidden boundary between celestial longitude and declination.
The path of the Sun which is basically the same year after year can be traced on one since curve in the heavens, any point of which will be both declination and celestial longitude, thus how they can be equated. In fact this is the source of the ancient technique of the antiscion relationship.

At the same time there is really no path of the Sun and to refer to this body in such manner can be quite confusing because everyone knows, it is not the Sun that is moving but rather Earth.
Thus we need to get beyond the illusion to what is really happening - that celestial longitude represents where Earth is in its orbit around the Sun and that declination represents the point of Earth's surface that is simultaneously being presented to the vertical rays of the Sun.
Now we are talking reality and at least to my way of thinking, it's must easier to understand.
Year after year when Earth is at any particular position around the Sun (in celestial longitude), the same declination or degree of its decline will be aligned with the Sun.
These are fairly constant equivalents, changing only about 4 degrees in declination over a 40,000-year cycle.

Ecliptic intercept refers to the association of a particular position of celestial longitude always being associated with a particular position of declination.
Those that everyone is familiar with are the Solstice Points, 0° Cancer or Capricorn that corresponds to maximum declination, which right now is about 23°26', also the Equinoxes, 0° Aries and Libra, associated with 00°00 declination.
Every declination point between 0° and 23°26' is also associated with celestial longitude positions. For example 17°31' in north declination corresponds to 19 Taurus 09 and 10 Leo 51.
Because these share the same declination, they are said to be reflections of each other or in antiscion relationship. In south declination at 17°31' the corresponding celestial longitudes are 19 Scorpio 09 and 10 Aquarius 51. The ecliptic intercepts then of 17°31' north declination are 19 Taurus 09 and 10 Leo 51; in south declination the ecliptic intercepts of 17°31' are 19 Scorpio 09 and 10 Aquarius 51.
Anyone can check this out in an ephemeris for any year.
For year after year the positions for the apparent Sun in celestial longitude and declination will equate as described above.
When the Sun is found at 17°31' declination, its celestial longitude will be one of the four positions cited depending on whether it is north or south declination, thus an ecliptic intercept.

Now that we are armed with a little background, let's get on to the three types of parallels as described by Jayne.

• Parallel 1. The 'B' parallel.
  
  
  • Statement from Jayne's book: "Any body having the same or nearly the same, declination as Mars would then be bodily parallel to Mars."
    
    
  • Explanation: The 'B' parallel standing for 'body' meant simply two celestial bodies at the same declination in one hemisphere, north or south, thus a bodily parallel, and cited by Jayne as the most powerful of the three types.
    
    
    • Example: Mars at 17N31 declination and any celestial body at or about 17N31.
      
      
• Parallel 2. The second parallel was referenced as 'A' representing 'antiscion.'
  However, there is more.
  
  
  • Statement from Jayne: In addition, a planet bodily at A, whose ecliptic intercept is at H, is in antiscion parallel (an A parallel) to P.
    
    
  • Explanation: Jayne was stating a planet bodily at any declination, and at, for example, 15Tau00 would be in antiscion parallel to any body at 15Leo00. This is simply the antiscion relationship using celestial longitude rather than declination.
    As for strength, he cites such as being more indirect and less powerful than the 'B' or bodily parallel.
    
    
    • Example: Mars at 17N31 declination, celestial longitude 15 Leo 00; another celestial body at 15 Tau 00, and any declination.
      
      
• Parallel 3. The 'E' or ecliptic parallel.
  
  
  • Statement: In an E parallel, the second body is bodily parallel to the ecliptic intercept of P.
    
    
  • Explanation: The 'E' or ecliptic parallel is a celestial body at any celestial longitude but with declination equivalent in celestial longitude to another body's declination equivalent in celestial longitude.
    This he states to be the most indirect or least powerful of all the three types.
    
    
    • Example: Mars at 17N31 declination and any celestial longitude; another celestial body at any declination and 19 Tau 09 or 10 Leo 51 in celestial longitude, both of which are the longitude or solar equivalents or the ecliptic intercepts of 17N31 declination.

This has been an explanation, as I understand it, of Jayne's description of three types of parallels. Jayne wrote this while Kt Boehrer was in the midst of her innovative research on out-of-bound bodies.
Until then no one knew how to approach the out-of-bounds factors. Now that we have that research, there has been a broadening of our understanding in many areas.

One of the most important factors concerning the above information is the strength Jayne attributed to each type of parallel, with the bodily parallel being the most powerful and a conjunction in longitude and parallel in declination simultaneously being even stronger.
However, he ascribes the 'antiscion parallel' computed in celestial longitude positions as being weaker and the 'ecliptic parallel, the coordination of celestial longitude translated into declination, being weaker yet.
He further indicates that a contra-parallel works through the same methodology.

Personally, I fully ascribe to the power of the 'B' or bodily parallel.

On the other hand, the 'A' parallel or antiscion works in declination with no doubt, but unless the bodies are actually parallel, I do not ascribe to the antiscion relationship in celestial longitude alone.
The rationale is simply that the antiscion relationship originated from declination, the mirror points of the same declination for two different positions in celestial longitude, not the other way around. Sometimes the methodology works, but in other instances, it seems to fall on a dumb note. When it does work, I have found celestial longitude is within 5 degrees of the longitude equivalent of the body's existing declination. When it doesn't seem to work, celestial longitude is more than five degrees away from the longitude equivalent of the existing declination.

There could be a relationship between Jayne's finding that the antiscion parallel in celestial longitude is of a weaker nature than a bodily parallel and that which I've found. In a way we are both discussing a weaken condition much like two bodies in celestial longitude in wide orb of a conjunction. However, the deciding factor of parallels is not celestial longitude, the deciding factor is the body's declination. The same scenario exists for the 'E' or ecliptic parallel and which Jayne termed even weaker than the 'A' or antiscon parallel.

There is a great difference in changing declination into celestial longitude and the reverse, changing celestial longitude into declination as must be done with the 'E' type parallel as described. The former no question works, but the latter, like the antiscion relationship when computed only in celestial longitude, sometimes falls on a dumb note-again perhaps for the same rationale, that its existing celestial longitude is more than a 5 degree orb from its solar equivalent in declination.

Even further though, celestial longitude could be likening to the environment around Earth since this in a way is Earth's walking path around the Sun. An energy can be thrown in its path and certainly affect it but it may be a side glancing hit as celestial longitude and its partner measurement celestial latitude are keyed only to Earth's path with imaginary poles. On the other hand, it takes a transmission onto Earth's body for energy to be fully incorporated. Of the two measurements related directly to Earth (described in ephemeredes as the Sun) celestial longitude or declination, only through declination does this occur. Unlike a celestial longitude measurement, declination is a measurement directly associated with Earth's physical body by being keyed to Earth's geocentric equator and positive and negative magnetic poles.