Guest guest Posted June 28, 2000 Report Share Posted June 28, 2000 Das It is possible to admit that the sidereal zodiac based on fixed stars has profound influence and that the sun is also a star and the planetary symbolism of the tropical zodiac may also have meaning for a certain level of identity(eg personality),but the personality is not the soul,and spiritual guidance congruent with the moksha aims of Hindu culture may be better served by the sidereal zodiac,the reincarnation reserarch that I have reviewed tends to support the value of the sidereal zodiac over the tropical zodiac for purpose of understanding dimensions of soul.My own experience as an astologer also supports the superiority of sidereal for spiritual understanding,and the value of tropical for personality analysis.For some people who function consciously as souls,their tropical personality profile may be almost irrelevant.However,in my experience these people are few in number.I will leave it to you all to evaluate my post as to what level of my being I speak from,soul or personality.I am a cancer sun(sidereal):leo sun (tropical):aries moon in both:Pisces lagna(sidereal),aries lagna(tropical).Regards Dave Birr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2000 Report Share Posted June 28, 2000 Hello everyone, Please note that I am trying to explain how, scientifically speaking, the moving Tropical zodiac is not as able to stand up the principles of Astrology as well as the fixed Sidereal zodiac. I'm not presenting a religious argument, nor am I discounting the "good" people have done. Remember that many Western techniques are about relationships between the planets distances, which are the same in both, or the houses, which are roughly the same in both. This discussion is only about the issue of zodiacs, not the other elements of astrology. I am saying that the Zodiac has energy which is beaming at us always. I am saying the Zodiac is fixed stars. The Tropical Zodiac is no longer even close to the fixed stars and continues to digress from them. My point is about waves, or physics, not religion. Yesterday on TV I saw Pat Robertson say that all "Oriental Religions" are FALSE. I am not like that. Astrology is not religion, so what I'm talking about doesn't fall into that category. Again, many Western techniques will work because much of that system is about true things, like houses, aspects, etc., which are not relative to the Zodiacs in question. Please keep in mind the details about what is being discusses here. It's not necessary to attach other matters to what I'm talking about. I presented a scientific reasoning as to why the Sidereal Zodiac makes more sense. Can someone refute it with a similar explanation for the Tropical Zodiac, or not. That is a question of importance here. If you know how the Tropical Zodiac is calculated, you will know that it is a result of the Sun's relationship to the Earth, not the fixed stars. That being the case, it DISCOUNTS the importance of the fixed stars, or Sidereal Zodiac, which is the same as saying that the Stars have no power. It is like saying the relationship of the Sun and Earth is the Signs. Then the signs themselves, the real ones, are meaningless to Tropical Astrologers. First admit this, then explain to me why this is so. I will differ. I will say the Stars, which are bodies of varying types, have power just as the planets do, because they too are bodies. I will say it has scientific (yet undiscovered) basis in varying types of waves. Thanks, Das Goravani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.