ongoing

[Guest guest]

I'm still pondering some of your statements of 12-06-99 Kevin/Baraka.

 

In the meanwhile not to lose the thread...

 

I decided to re-read what my first book on astrology* had to say about

Sidereal.

He writes: " A zodiac of the constellations, Aries 0` corresponding to the

beginning of the constellation Aries, followed by arbitrary divisions of

30`, regardless of the true size and overlapping of these groups of stars.

This zodiac as applied at the present time in this country by a few sincere

astrologers has invariably completely fallen down whenever I have tested it

with the data of persons I know. The idea seems quite illogical. Why

start with the constellation Aries, anyway? With the Tropical Zodiac the

signs begin at a distinct and logical point: the intersection of ecliptic

and equator at the Spring Equinox. I cannot vouch for the value of the

systems used with the Sidereal Zodiac in eastern countries, having not

studied these. "

 

Mayo has some points. For one, the constellations really don't exist as

anything other than groupings of stars as seen from Earth. The physical

stars that comprise them are at varying distances from Earth, often in

different galaxies! And Mayo does say that the constellations are of

varying sizes in zodiacal longitude, with some huge like Scorpio and others

insignificant like Cancer. How can they be given equal arcs of 30`?

 

Finally have you found Sidereal ephemerides for the late 19th century

years? (i.e. for years of birth of Patton and Ike?)

 

All for now, Breck

_______________

 

 

* How to Teach Yourself Astrology by Jeff Mayo.

[Guest guest]

Hello, Breck.

 

In a message dated 99-12-09 21:44:57 EST, you write:

 

> I decided to re-read what my first book on astrology* had to say about

> Sidereal.

> He writes: " A zodiac of the constellations, Aries 0` corresponding to the

> beginning of the constellation Aries, followed by arbitrary divisions of

> 30`, regardless of the true size and overlapping of these groups of stars.

> This zodiac as applied at the present time in this country by a few sincere

> astrologers has invariably completely fallen down whenever I have tested it

> with the data of persons I know.

 

Well, since the Sidereal Zodiac places Aldebaran at 15* Taurus, Spica at 29*

Virgo, and Antares at 15* Scorpio, it doesn't sound very arbitrary to me.

 

We also have to ask what criteria Mayo used when he decided that the Sidereal

Zodiac " completely falls down " Was he going by signs alone? Was he sticking

only to people whose Tropical charts " made more sense " than their Sidereal

charts? Many people have charts in one zodiac that " make more sense " than in

the other, if one goes by signs alone, but this all-too-common practice

leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Example: A friend of mine credits her leadership and organizing skills with

her Tropical Aries Sun. I pointed out that she has a Saturn/Midheaven

conjunction and Mars sitting on her Sun/Moon midpoint. I therefore advocate

going beyond signs and looking at these factors regardless of one's chosen

zodiac.

 

The Sidereal Zodiac's beauty is that, by correcting for precession, accurate

prediction by returns, ingresses, and other transits, becomes possible,

making a scientific astrology just as much a science as an art. So, we may

also ask if Mayo tried any sidereal forecasting methods as well, since

Fagan's failure with Tropical solar and lunar returns led him to try the

Sidereal Zodiac.

 

> The idea seems quite illogical. Why

> start with the constellation Aries, anyway? With the Tropical Zodiac the

> signs begin at a distinct and logical point: the intersection of ecliptic

> and equator at the Spring Equinox. I cannot vouch for the value of the

> systems used with the Sidereal Zodiac in eastern countries, having not

> studied these. "

 

If it seems arbitrary to start with Aries, then why equate the Northern

Hemisphere's Spring Equinox with 0* Aries?

 

> Mayo has some points. For one, the constellations really don't exist as

> anything other than groupings of stars as seen from Earth. The physical

> stars that comprise them are at varying distances from Earth, often in

> different galaxies! And Mayo does say that the constellations are of

> varying sizes in zodiacal longitude, with some huge like Scorpio and others

> insignificant like Cancer. How can they be given equal arcs of 30`?

>

> Finally have you found Sidereal ephemerides for the late 19th century

> years? (i.e. for years of birth of Patton and Ike?)

 

Patton's Sidereal Sun may have been in Libra, but with his Mars as a focal

point to a Pluto-Mars-Mercury T-square, Scorpio/Aries behavior is no

surprise. Patton also has a Grand Trine involving Jupiter, Neptune/Pluto

(eight degrees apart), and Black Moon Lilith.

 

Eisenhower, Patton's fellow Sidereal Libra, also has a T-square and a Grand

Trine. The T-square is Neptune/Pluto, Saturn, and Venus; the Grand Trine is

Neptune/Pluto (only 1*10' apart this time), Mercury, and Jupiter.

Eisenhower's Venus sextiles both Mercury and Jupiter, and opposes the

Neptun/Pluto conjunction, making it the focal point of a " kite " . And, like

Patton, Eisenhower's Pluto was part of a T-Square _and_ a Grand Trine.

 

Both men also had " cosmic rectangles, " too. I can't go further on either

man, though, without full birth data.

 

Thank you, Breck, for always having tough-but-important questions.

 

Later,

Kevin/Baraka