Origin of the Zodiac

December 12, 2002

Here is an alternative view of zodiac sources:

http://geocities.com/zreunion

Paul Albertsen

December 12, 2002

Paul, the number symbolism of the site you mentioned is totally messed up.

Sidereal Aries is ONE (energies like Tropical Taurus), sidereal Taurus is

TWO (division, diversity, energies like Tropical Gemini) and so forth. I've

done extensive study of number symbolism in relation to zodiac signs and

published articles on this topic.

I believe that the concept of numbers having a relationship to zodiac signs

is correct. Male signs (even numbers) in general are more centered and

autonomous and female signs (even numbers) are more extraverted, social,

and diverse. This only works out in the sidereal zodiac. The symbolism

doesn't work at all in the Tropical zodiac because the male/female sign

polarity is reversed (and incorrect).

Terese

At 06:19 PM 12/12/02 -0000, you wrote:

>Here is an alternative view of zodiac sources:

>

> http://geocities.com/zreunion

>

>Paul Albertsen

December 12, 2002

P.S. to Paul

Paul, some of your number symblism is more or less 'right on.' But the

symbolism is assigend to the wrong signs. Just consider men and women (in

general). Women are more social, sharing, the helpers of society, and

willing to accept the suggestions of others. Men are more autonomous and in

general feel insulted if someone asks if they need help.

We can all pretend that there are no differences between men and women, but

t'aint so. The genders of the zodiacal signs reflect some basic differences

between the two sexes....a first point of evidence that there is something

wrong with the Tropical zodiac. (Unless you don't divide the signs into

polarities: male/female.)

Terese

December 13, 2002

Well just to stimulate additional thought on the

matter let me suggest the following....

Aires is zero or actually the infinity sign.. I

always felt the Tarot and the Magician expressed the

movement of Aires especially well...

Taurus then being the number one and the manifestation

of thought(Aires)... Actual Matter... Thats Taurus to

me.

Gemini... How does one refute two?

Cancer...3

and

Leo... 4

If one believes that Taurus was the beginning of the

Zodiac the progression would lead to the Cancer/Leo

Cusp as the Med Heaven or rather the MidHeaven... No

jokes please!

Transference occurs at that cusp... and I think from

the woman comes man.

Guess I could go on and on here and maybe there's an

article within me to write...

As I look ahead, I am reminded that Pisces would then

be 11(Eleven) and completion.... but as you all know

the cycle then continues and does so repeatedly...

jivio

PS: from the MidHeaven(Cancer/Leo Cusp) to the Nadir

(Capricorn/Aquarius Cusp) is a natural progression

downward until the complete materialization of man is

complete as far as material forces are concerned.

The soul escapes from this material world just as the

water flows from the urn(Aquarius). The possibilities

of spirit rise to the ascendent only to take shape

once again.....

--- Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

> P.S. to Paul

>

> Paul, some of your number symblism is more or less

> 'right on.' But the

> symbolism is assigend to the wrong signs. Just

> consider men and women (in

> general). Women are more social, sharing, the

> helpers of society, and

> willing to accept the suggestions of others. Men are

> more autonomous and in

> general feel insulted if someone asks if they need

> help.

>

> We can all pretend that there are no differences

> between men and women, but

> t'aint so. The genders of the zodiacal signs reflect

> some basic differences

> between the two sexes....a first point of evidence

> that there is something

> wrong with the Tropical zodiac. (Unless you don't

> divide the signs into

> polarities: male/female.)

>

> Terese

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close

> to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe:

> -

> Un:

> -

> List owner:

> -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

December 13, 2002

So which signs are suppose to be masculine and which are suppose to be feminine

and what sources helped you in this conclusion.

I found a lot of logic in the numerology that was presented by Paul

Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:P.S. to Paul

Paul, some of your number symblism is more or less 'right on.' But the

symbolism is assigend to the wrong signs. Just consider men and women (in

general). Women are more social, sharing, the helpers of society, and

willing to accept the suggestions of others. Men are more autonomous and in

general feel insulted if someone asks if they need help.

We can all pretend that there are no differences between men and women, but

t'aint so. The genders of the zodiacal signs reflect some basic differences

between the two sexes....a first point of evidence that there is something

wrong with the Tropical zodiac. (Unless you don't divide the signs into

polarities: male/female.)

Terese

" How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

Post message:

Subscribe: -

Un: -

List owner: -owner

Shortcut URL to this page:

/

December 13, 2002

From ancient times the zodiac signs have been divided into masculine and

feminine (odd/even). Male signs are odd, female signs even.

Odd, masculine, diurnal: 1-Aries, 3-Gemini,5-Leo, 7-Libra, 9-Sag, 11-Aquarius

Even, feminine, nocturnal: 2-Taurus, 4-Cancer, 6-Virgo, 8-Scorpio, 10-Cap,

12-Pisces

(References/sources given on request.)

Of course, if you believe the zodiac always began with Taurus and still

does begin with Taurus (or Libra), then you have to throw this odd/even

division out the window. Fagan was self-taught re: history and the culture

of Egypt. He wasn't always right.

Also, astrology evolves and changes just like everything else. There is no

doubt that the first zodiac was sidereal. This doesn't necessarily mean

that this is still the correct astrological zodiac...though I believe that

it IS the correct zodiac for astrology.

Terese

At 07:44 AM 12/13/02 -0800, you wrote:

>

>So which signs are supposeD to be masculine and which are supposeD to be

feminine and what sources helped you in this conclusion.

>

December 13, 2002

Ok, that was cool. This is the last thing I wanted to know on this topic.

Using what you just said about the division of masculine and feminine, wouldn't

masculine mean action, movement, extroversion and sociability? After all, men

define themselves by what they do and women are content at just being without

the need for action. That would make them self ruling.

Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: From ancient times the zodiac

signs have been divided into masculine and

feminine (odd/even). Male signs are odd, female signs even.

Odd, masculine, diurnal: 1-Aries, 3-Gemini,5-Leo, 7-Libra, 9-Sag, 11-Aquarius

Even, feminine, nocturnal: 2-Taurus, 4-Cancer, 6-Virgo, 8-Scorpio, 10-Cap,

12-Pisces

(References/sources given on request.)

Of course, if you believe the zodiac always began with Taurus and still

does begin with Taurus (or Libra), then you have to throw this odd/even

division out the window. Fagan was self-taught re: history and the culture

of Egypt. He wasn't always right.

Also, astrology evolves and changes just like everything else. There is no

doubt that the first zodiac was sidereal. This doesn't necessarily mean

that this is still the correct astrological zodiac...though I believe that

it IS the correct zodiac for astrology.

Terese

At 07:44 AM 12/13/02 -0800, you wrote:

>

>So which signs are supposeD to be masculine and which are supposeD to be

feminine and what sources helped you in this conclusion.

>

" How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

Post message:

Subscribe: -

Un: -

List owner: -owner

Shortcut URL to this page:

/

December 13, 2002

If Fagan wasn't always correct, certainly the

Tropicalists are rarely right! The Zodiac of Egypt and

Babylonia was Sidereal (measured by the fixed-stars)

and anchored the Zodiac on the fixed star Aldebaran

(15TAU) and the fixed star Antares (15SCO) this taking

place in the Taurian Age. The Tropical Zodiac was

INVENTED by the Greeks and being a " Seasonal " Zodiac

did not come into vogue until about the 5th Century AD

i.e. " end of the Age of Aries and beginning of the Age

of Pisces " . For more historical info please refer to

" Sidereal Home Page " from Google.

From my Sidereal perspective, the masculine and

feminine " Signs " have nothing to do with their

numerical order, but everything to do with the nature

of their so called " Ruling Planet(s) " . Mars,

considered a masculine Planet projects a masculine

influence to both Aries & Scorpio. Whereas Venus is

considered a feminine Planet would project a feminine

influence to both Tauras & Libra. Leo, of course would

be considered masculine beacause of the " Sun's "

rulership. Cancer, feminine because of the Moon's

influence. For the rest (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,

Neptune, and Pluto....)not so obvious!!

In any case, Angular Planets and/or various planetary

configurations to the luminaries will often modify the

'so called' masculine or feminine constellations. For

example , the native with their Sun closely aspected

to Mars will display such maculine traits as,

aggresion, assertiveness, urge dominate, and so,

regardless of the constellation or sign the Sun is in.

Of course Mars is more comfortable in Scorpio than in

Libra, nonetheless Mars is not passive (feminine).

Sidereally, Mike

--- Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

> From ancient times the zodiac signs have been

> divided into masculine and

> feminine (odd/even). Male signs are odd, female

> signs even.

>

> Odd, masculine, diurnal: 1-Aries, 3-Gemini,5-Leo,

> 7-Libra, 9-Sag, 11-Aquarius

>

> Even, feminine, nocturnal: 2-Taurus, 4-Cancer,

> 6-Virgo, 8-Scorpio, 10-Cap,

> 12-Pisces

>

> (References/sources given on request.)

>

> Of course, if you believe the zodiac always began

> with Taurus and still

> does begin with Taurus (or Libra), then you have to

> throw this odd/even

> division out the window. Fagan was self-taught re:

> history and the culture

> of Egypt. He wasn't always right.

>

> Also, astrology evolves and changes just like

> everything else. There is no

> doubt that the first zodiac was sidereal. This

> doesn't necessarily mean

> that this is still the correct astrological

> zodiac...though I believe that

> it IS the correct zodiac for astrology.

>

> Terese

>

> At 07:44 AM 12/13/02 -0800, you wrote:

> >

> >So which signs are supposeD to be masculine and

> which are supposeD to be

> feminine and what sources helped you in this

> conclusion.

> >

>

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

December 15, 2002

Hi Terese,

, Terese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

> From ancient times the zodiac signs have been divided into

masculine and

> feminine (odd/even). Male signs are odd, female signs even.

>

> Odd, masculine, diurnal: 1-Aries, 3-Gemini,5-Leo, 7-Libra, 9-Sag,

11-Aquarius

>

> Even, feminine, nocturnal: 2-Taurus, 4-Cancer, 6-Virgo, 8-Scorpio,

10-Cap,

> 12-Pisces

>

> (References/sources given on request.)

You can't cite Ptolemy 1:XV?

>

> Of course, if you believe the zodiac always began with Taurus and

still

> does begin with Taurus (or Libra), then you have to throw this

odd/even

> division out the window.

I was unaware that the Greeks that popularized the 12-sign zodiac

used Taurus as the first sign. Certainly the Babylonians nor the

Egyptians would have used it, nor used some masculine/feminine scheme.

> Fagan was self-taught re: history and the culture

> of Egypt. He wasn't always right.

The Egyptians saw Aries culminate as Sothis rose, yet they did not

see Aries as a " ram. "

Best,

Ed K

> Also, astrology evolves and changes just like everything else.

There is no

> doubt that the first zodiac was sidereal. This doesn't necessarily

mean

> that this is still the correct astrological zodiac...though I

believe that

> it IS the correct zodiac for astrology.

>

> Terese

December 15, 2002

, Michael Viele

<solunars> wrote:

> If Fagan wasn't always correct, certainly the

> Tropicalists are rarely right! The Zodiac of Egypt and

> Babylonia was Sidereal (measured by the fixed-stars)

> and anchored the Zodiac on the fixed star Aldebaran

> (15TAU) and the fixed star Antares (15SCO) this taking

> place in the Taurian Age.

Hi Michael,

If you think that the Taurean Age began after the 5th C. BCE, this

might make sense. The event that Fagan uses to determine the

fiducial point of the sidereal is based upon a time when the zodiac

had more than 12 divisions. The Babylonians also would have never

thought of Aldebaran or Antares as being at 15* of the zodiac, seeing

as they had no idea an ecliptic plane existed back then.

> The Tropical Zodiac was

> INVENTED by the Greeks and being a " Seasonal " Zodiac

> did not come into vogue until about the 5th Century AD

> i.e. " end of the Age of Aries and beginning of the Age

> of Pisces " . For more historical info please refer to

> " Sidereal Home Page " from Google.

>

> From my Sidereal perspective, the masculine and

> feminine " Signs " have nothing to do with their

> numerical order, but everything to do with the nature

> of their so called " Ruling Planet(s) " .

Ptolemy clearly states in the Tetrabiblos, " The commencement, it has

been already said, belongs to Aries; since the moisture of the spring

forms an introduction for the other seasons. And, as the male sex

governs, and the active principle takes precedence of the passsive,

the signs of Aries and Libra are consequently considered to be

masculine and diurnal. " [book 1:XV]

- Ed K

Mars,

> considered a masculine Planet projects a masculine

> influence to both Aries & Scorpio. Whereas Venus is

> considered a feminine Planet would project a feminine

> influence to both Tauras & Libra. Leo, of course would

> be considered masculine beacause of the " Sun's "

> rulership. Cancer, feminine because of the Moon's

> influence. For the rest (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,

> Neptune, and Pluto....)not so obvious!!

>

> In any case, Angular Planets and/or various planetary

> configurations to the luminaries will often modify the

> 'so called' masculine or feminine constellations. For

> example , the native with their Sun closely aspected

> to Mars will display such maculine traits as,

> aggresion, assertiveness, urge dominate, and so,

> regardless of the constellation or sign the Sun is in.

> Of course Mars is more comfortable in Scorpio than in

> Libra, nonetheless Mars is not passive (feminine).

December 16, 2002

--- " Ed Kohout <crumpo "

<crumpo wrote:

> , Michael

> Viele

> <solunars> wrote:

> > If Fagan wasn't always correct, certainly the

> > Tropicalists are rarely right! The Zodiac of Egypt

> and

> > Babylonia was Sidereal (measured by the

> fixed-stars)

> > and anchored the Zodiac on the fixed star

> Aldebaran

> > (15TAU) and the fixed star Antares (15SCO) this

> taking

> > place in the Taurian Age.

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> If you think that the Taurean Age began after the

> 5th C. BCE, this

> might make sense. The event that Fagan uses to

> determine the

> fiducial point of the sidereal is based upon a time

> when the zodiac

> had more than 12 divisions.

ED... Unclear what you mean by event that Fagen used

as well as your understanding of 12 divisions and its

relevance?

The Babylonians also

> would have never

> thought of Aldebaran or Antares as being at 15* of

> the zodiac, seeing

> as they had no idea an ecliptic plane existed back

> then.

>

The world did think the earth flat then. So did the

Greeks but that didn't stop them from developing

apostulatedtualized within seasonal parameters.

>

> > The Tropical Zodiac was

> > INVENTED by the Greeks and being a " Seasonal "

> Zodiac

> > did not come into vogue until about the 5th

> Century AD

> > i.e. " end of the Age of Aries and beginning of the

> Age

> > of Pisces " . For more historical info please refer

> to

> > " Sidereal Home Page " from Google.

> >

> > From my Sidereal perspective, the masculine and

> > feminine " Signs " have nothing to do with their

> > numerical order, but everything to do with the

> nature

> > of their so called " Ruling Planet(s) " .

>

> Ptolemy clearly states in the Tetrabiblos, " The

> commencement, it has

> been already said, belongs to Aries; since the

> moisture of the spring

> forms an introduction for the other seasons. And,

> as the male sex

> governs, and the active principle takes precedence

> of the passsive,

> the signs of Aries and Libra are consequently

> considered to be

> masculine and diurnal. " [book 1:XV]

>

> - Ed K

>

Ed... You seem to put a lot of stoPtolemy Ptloemy and

the Tetrabiblos... " The commencement belongs to Aires

because of what? The moisture of spring(The rainy

season in Greece I presume) forms an introduction to

the other seasons " That is as good as any reason I

guess if someone needs a reason. To continue with the

rationale of " And, as the male sex governs, and the

active principle takes precedence of the passsive,

the signs of Aries and Libra are consequently

considered to be masculine and diurnal. " [book 1:XV]

seems like a major stretch of saran wrap..... This has

something to do with Sidereal Astrology?

>

> Mars,

> > considered a masculine Planet projects a masculine

> > influence to both Aries & Scorpio. Whereas Venus

> is

> > considered a feminine Planet would project a

> feminine

> > influence to both Tauras & Libra. Leo, of course

> would

> > be considered masculine beacause of the " Sun's "

> > rulership. Cancer, feminine because of the Moon's

> > influence. For the rest (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,

> > Neptune, and Pluto....)not so obvious!!

> >

> > In any case, Angular Planets and/or various

> planetary

> > configurations to the luminaries will often modify

> the

> > 'so called' masculine or feminine constellations.

> For

> > example , the native with their Sun closely

> aspected

> > to Mars will display such maculine traits as,

> > aggresion, assertiveness, urge dominate, and so,

> > regardless of the constellation or sign the Sun is

> in.

> > Of course Mars is more comfortable in Scorpio than

> in

> > Libra, nonetheless Mars is not passive (feminine).

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close

> to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe:

> -

> Un:

> -

> List owner:

> -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

December 16, 2002

, Juan Oliver <jivio>

wrote:

EK> > If you think that the Taurean Age began after the

> > 5th C. BCE, this

> > might make sense. The event that Fagan uses to

> > determine the

> > fiducial point of the sidereal is based upon a time

> > when the zodiac

> > had more than 12 divisions.

>

> ED... Unclear what you mean by event that Fagen used

> as well as your understanding of 12 divisions and its

> relevance?

The establishment of the Temple of Nebo, April 3, 786 BC, sunset.

Relevant becuase that is the chart upon which Fagan proved the

origins of exaltations, which fit into his sidereal zodiac. That no

astrology of that time in history had 12 signs shows that no " age of

Taurus " could have existed.

> The Babylonians also

> > would have never

> > thought of Aldebaran or Antares as being at 15* of

> > the zodiac, seeing

> > as they had no idea an ecliptic plane existed back

> > then.

> >

> The world did think the earth flat then. So did the

> Greeks but that didn't stop them from developing

> apostulatedtualized within seasonal parameters.

Aristotle in De Caelo II.13-14 clearly states that the Earth is

Round, as does Ptolemy.

> > > The Tropical Zodiac was

> > > INVENTED by the Greeks and being a " Seasonal "

> > Zodiac

> > > did not come into vogue until about the 5th

> > Century AD

> > > i.e. " end of the Age of Aries and beginning of the

> > Age

> > > of Pisces " . For more historical info please refer

> > to

> > > " Sidereal Home Page " from Google.

> > >

> > > From my Sidereal perspective, the masculine and

> > > feminine " Signs " have nothing to do with their

> > > numerical order, but everything to do with the

> > nature

> > > of their so called " Ruling Planet(s) " .

> >

> > Ptolemy clearly states in the Tetrabiblos, " The

> > commencement, it has

> > been already said, belongs to Aries; since the

> > moisture of the spring

> > forms an introduction for the other seasons. And,

> > as the male sex

> > governs, and the active principle takes precedence

> > of the passsive,

> > the signs of Aries and Libra are consequently

> > considered to be

> > masculine and diurnal. " [book 1:XV]

> >

> > - Ed K

> >

> Ed... You seem to put a lot of stoPtolemy Ptloemy and

> the Tetrabiblos... " The commencement belongs to Aires

> because of what? The moisture of spring(The rainy

> season in Greece I presume) forms an introduction to

> the other seasons " That is as good as any reason I

> guess if someone needs a reason.

There seems to be some confusion as to exactly what sign was " first "

in the Greek tradition. Some traditions started the zodiac with

Virgo. The earliest calendars of Greece began on the Summer

solstice, and thus the zodiac as well started with Cancer.

To quote Lester Ness' translation of Auguste Bouche'-

Leclercq's " L'Astrologie grecque " :

>>> The Greco-Egyptian tradition, attested by the majority of the

hellenic calendars, made the year -- and in consequence the division

of the zodiac -- begin at the Summer Solstice. Later, perhaps after

Hipparchus, the astrologers and astronomers, giving in to Chaldaean

habit, Roman at need, placed the first degree of the zodiac at the

Spring Equinox, in the sign of Aries. <<<

Ptolemy, who was of that tradition, ends up reluctantly using Aries

as the fiducial sign, and thus justifies his selection

in " Tetrabiblos " with precarious reasoning (in other places he

associates moisture with the feminine).

> To continue with the

> rationale of " And, as the male sex governs, and the

> active principle takes precedence of the passsive,

> the signs of Aries and Libra are consequently

> considered to be masculine and diurnal. " [book 1:XV]

> seems like a major stretch of saran wrap.....

In the context of scientific thought of Ptolemy's milieu, this was

considered to be precipice of thought.

> This has something to do with Sidereal Astrology?

Yes. If you want to invoke historical precedence to your thinking

about the numerological value of sidereal zodiac signs, it pays to

know the history. If you simply want to create some new astrology

based upon Fagan's fiducial and a mishmosh of Reniassance

astrological rulerships, that's fine, but you can't have it both ways

without violating the laws of reason.

- Ed K

December 17, 2002

It was in the Taurian Age that the Egyptian -

Bablonian Zodiac originated (B.C. 2500 or so) and was

the so called leader of the zodiac herd up until the

Greek era when the spring equinox coincided with the

ending of the Arian Age and the beginning of the Age

of Pisces (A.D. 220--0 Aries). A.D.500 is the

approximate year when the Tropical Zodiac was more or

less formally adopted by the Greeks and of course is

the one most commonly used today. About a 3 degree

dicrepancy from the AD 220 date.

Mike

--- " Ed Kohout <crumpo "

<crumpo wrote:

> , Michael

> Viele

> <solunars> wrote:

> > If Fagan wasn't always correct, certainly the

> > Tropicalists are rarely right! The Zodiac of Egypt

> and

> > Babylonia was Sidereal (measured by the

> fixed-stars)

> > and anchored the Zodiac on the fixed star

> Aldebaran

> > (15TAU) and the fixed star Antares (15SCO) this

> taking

> > place in the Taurian Age.

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> If you think that the Taurean Age began after the

> 5th C. BCE, this

> might make sense. The event that Fagan uses to

> determine the

> fiducial point of the sidereal is based upon a time

> when the zodiac

> had more than 12 divisions. The Babylonians also

> would have never

> thought of Aldebaran or Antares as being at 15* of

> the zodiac, seeing

> as they had no idea an ecliptic plane existed back

> then.

>

> > The Tropical Zodiac was

> > INVENTED by the Greeks and being a " Seasonal "

> Zodiac

> > did not come into vogue until about the 5th

> Century AD

> > i.e. " end of the Age of Aries and beginning of the

> Age

> > of Pisces " . For more historical info please refer

> to

> > " Sidereal Home Page " from Google.

> >

> > From my Sidereal perspective, the masculine and

> > feminine " Signs " have nothing to do with their

> > numerical order, but everything to do with the

> nature

> > of their so called " Ruling Planet(s) " .

>

> Ptolemy clearly states in the Tetrabiblos, " The

> commencement, it has

> been already said, belongs to Aries; since the

> moisture of the spring

> forms an introduction for the other seasons. And,

> as the male sex

> governs, and the active principle takes precedence

> of the passsive,

> the signs of Aries and Libra are consequently

> considered to be

> masculine and diurnal. " [book 1:XV]

>

> - Ed K

>

> Mars,

> > considered a masculine Planet projects a masculine

> > influence to both Aries & Scorpio. Whereas Venus

> is

> > considered a feminine Planet would project a

> feminine

> > influence to both Tauras & Libra. Leo, of course

> would

> > be considered masculine beacause of the " Sun's "

> > rulership. Cancer, feminine because of the Moon's

> > influence. For the rest (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,

> > Neptune, and Pluto....)not so obvious!!

> >

> > In any case, Angular Planets and/or various

> planetary

> > configurations to the luminaries will often modify

> the

> > 'so called' masculine or feminine constellations.

> For

> > example , the native with their Sun closely

> aspected

> > to Mars will display such maculine traits as,

> > aggresion, assertiveness, urge dominate, and so,

> > regardless of the constellation or sign the Sun is

> in.

> > Of course Mars is more comfortable in Scorpio than

> in

> > Libra, nonetheless Mars is not passive (feminine).

>

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

December 17, 2002

At 11:38 PM 12/14/02 -0000, Ed Kohout wrote:

>

>You can't cite Ptolemy 1:XV?

Well, Ptolemy, yes, but not the specific reference. With four bookshelves

of reference books and some of these stacked around my office, I was too

lazy to look for the book...well books. I have Robert Schmidt's

translations of Ptolemy as well as the Loeb edition. Thanks for the help!

We've had storms here for the last few days and power outages, so I'm just

now able to reply to posts on this list.

Yes, sign polarity and the quads (cardinal, fixed and mutable) belong to

Ptolemy. But the triplicities (which Ptolemy gave the names of the elements

to), come from way back in Mesopotamia. It's really interesting that Cyril

Fagan accepted the quads, but as far as I know, he didn't talk about the

triplicities.

>I was unaware that the Greeks that popularized the 12-sign zodiac

>used Taurus as the first sign. Certainly the Babylonians nor the

>Egyptians would have used it, nor used some masculine/feminine scheme.

No, only Cyril Fagan suggested that the zodiac began with Taurus or Libra.

It's true that the lunar mansion system once began with Taurus (as Fagan

points out), but that's not the same as the zodiac.

>The Egyptians saw Aries culminate as Sothis rose, yet they did not

>see Aries as a " ram. "

I'm a bit lost with that statement. I'm not sure how it relates to what

we're talking about....??

Terese

December 17, 2002

Hello Michael,

> , Michael Viele

><solunars> wrote:

>> If Fagan wasn't always correct, certainly the

>> Tropicalists are rarely right! The Zodiac of Egypt and

>> Babylonia was Sidereal (measured by the fixed-stars)

>> and anchored the Zodiac on the fixed star Aldebaran

>> (15TAU) and the fixed star Antares (15SCO) this taking

>> place in the Taurian Age.

The zodiac was sidereal all right, but it's Fagan's **opinion** (only) that

this zodiac was anchored with Aldebaran and Antares. The Project Hindsight

translations contain several records of the positions of fixed stars in

ancient times. Some of these are Tropical, but the sidereal positions

weren't anchored with Aldebaran and Antares. (I've really studied this and

have compared what seem to be sidereal positions with a few of the modern

sidereal zodiacs. One best 'hit' is the Raman ayanamsa, which isn't so

popular in India now.

Another record of stars does have Antares and Aldebaran at 15 degrees, but

almost all the other star positions in the record agree with the Lahiri

zodiac, which places star positions about a degree ahead of Fagan.

In other words, the jury is out on what alignments were made to mark the

ancient sidereal zodiacs. It seems to have been a mass of confusion for

everyone involved.

>> From my Sidereal perspective, the masculine and

>> feminine " Signs " have nothing to do with their

>> numerical order, but everything to do with the nature

>> of their so called " Ruling Planet(s) " .

In classical Greek astrology Mars was considered to be nocturnal

(feminine). Why?

If you want to ignore classical Greek, that's O.K. But....Aries and Scorpio

are two very different signs. One belongs to the diurnal (female) side of

the zodiac and one belongs to the nocturnal (feminine) side. O.K., maybe

that's Greek too. But Scorpio and Aries still are very different kinds of

signs. Aries consults within itself, is quiet and determined and can be

stubborn (I have a triple Aries son) and Scorpio is sort of all over the

place, rather a firebrand. Lots of gangsters had several planets in

Scorpio.(These are the sidereal signs, of course.)

Terese

December 17, 2002

Mike, what is your reference for this? Modern scholars, recent translations

of ancient texts and recovered dated horoscopes place the first reference

to a 12 sign zodiac (by the Babylonians) in about the 4th centure BCE.

Terese

Mike wrote:

It was in the Taurian Age that the Egyptian -

Bablonian Zodiac originated (B.C. 2500 or so)...

December 17, 2002

Hi all,

Which House System and which Zodiac are most of you using?

Have some of you come out of a Tropical background? The reason that I ask is

that I would be interested to hear about Solar and Lunar Returns and the success

that you have reading them when you use the Sidereal Zodiac as opposed to the

Tropical?

Shamira

M

-

Terese Hamilton

Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:37 PM

Re: Re: Origin of the Zodiac

Mike, what is your reference for this? Modern scholars, recent translations

of ancient texts and recovered dated horoscopes place the first reference

to a 12 sign zodiac (by the Babylonians) in about the 4th centure BCE.

Terese

Mike wrote:

It was in the Taurian Age that the Egyptian -

Bablonian Zodiac originated (B.C. 2500 or so)...

" How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

Post message:

Subscribe: -

Un: -

List owner: -owner

Shortcut URL to this page:

/

December 17, 2002

Well T, whether it sounds like Tropical or not is ok

with me... The full context began with Taurus at the

ASC. don't forget...

Its all about cycles whether its sidereal, tropical or

chinese....

jivio

--- Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

> We.l.l.l, Gee...how Tropical sounding can you get??

>

> At 07:51 PM 12/12/02 -0800, Juan Oliver wrote:

>

> >PS: from the MidHeaven(Cancer/Leo Cusp) to the

> Nadir

> >(Capricorn/Aquarius Cusp) is a natural progression

> >downward until the complete materialization of man

> is

> >complete as far as material forces are concerned.

> >The soul escapes from this material world just as

> the

> >water flows from the urn(Aquarius). The

> possibilities

> >of spirit rise to the ascendent only to take shape

> >once again.....

> jivio

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close

> to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe:

> -

> Un:

> -

> List owner:

> -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

December 17, 2002

> Fagan was self-taught re: history and the culture of Egypt. He wasn't

always right.

>Also, astrology evolves and changes just like everything else. There is no

>doubt that the first zodiac was sidereal...

solunars writes:

> If Fagan wasn't always correct, certainly the Tropicalists are rarely right!

> The Zodiac of Egypt and Babylonia was Sidereal (measured by the

> fixed-stars) and anchored the Zodiac on the fixed star Aldebaran (15TAU)

> and the fixed star Antares (15SCO) this taking place in the Taurian Age.

> The Tropical Zodiac was INVENTED by the Greeks ...

*******I wasn't aware when I joined this list that it was mainly people

arguing for ONLY sidereal astrology, and ignoring the twelve months of the

year. I don't believe it's that one system is right and the other is wrong,

but rather they are two different systems. Tropical astrology in a sense

shouldn't be called 'astrology', I suppose, because it doesn't have to do

with the stars, but its old name comes from the fact that the sun, moon and

planets were all called " stars " . A person born next week at the winter

solstice in the northern hemisphere will have certain characteristics because

the sun is at its lowest point, regardless of what stars are invisible behind

it. That's why tropical astrology works, regardless of intellectual arguments

anyone can mount against it, " proving " that it " shouldn't work " .

As for the argument that it was 'invented by the Greeks', the

twelve-month solar calendar goes back thousands of years, back into the mists

of prehistory-- -- -- which I don't believe anyone here can say very much

about definitively. It's usually taught that it was discovered by the

Egyptians at least 5000 years ago because of the annual flooding of the Nile,

but ancient monuments like Stonehenge and the many other stone circles all

across Europe show that people as far back as we can go in time knew about

and told time from the solstices and equinoxes. The ancient Chinese and the

American Indians had the sky divided into four great quadrants by these

astronomical realities, which have nothing to do with what stars are at what

positions in any given zodiac age; and as the sun moves through each one of

those quarters, there are three full moons. It strains credulity to believe

that no one anywhere simply divided the year into 12 by these obvious markers

before the Babylonians or Greeks.

Robert Powell in his book " Hermetic Astrology " calls the ancients'

understanding of the twelve phases of the sun's rise and fall annually the

" Steps of the Sun " , having to do with the increase and decrease of light,

symbolized by the various ways of understanding the interaction of the

elements of warmth and moisture through the year. This 12-fold division of

the year is what we currently call tropical astrology, and there's no reason

to believe it hasn't always existed, since the most ancient astronomical

devices mark the solstices and equinoxes. The secret of keeping an accurate

calendar was lost and everything was confused by the fifth century B.C., as

can be seen in in how the Romans were unable to keep the calendar they

inherited from Egypt accurate, forcing Julius Caesar to reform it a few

centuries later. So the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were confused then, and

the first month after the vernal equinox was named Aries for the stars that

with there then, and so on. In fact, the constellation Aries is a tiny and

insignificant one, and may only have been recognized as a separate

constellation when the vernal equinox began taking place there instead of in

the easily recognizable Taurus and the Pleiades; we know that what we now

call the constellation Libra was only created at that time from what had

previously been the claws of the scorpion.

It's quite a job to untangle them now, but I think nothing will be

achieved by arguing that the course of the sun during the year is meaningless

and only 12 groups of stars have significance. There are and were always two

different systems, and this was once known, as can be seen in the great

research of Santillana in " Hamlets Mill " and in the ancient Indian tradition

of the Yugas, which came down to us as the ages of Gold, Silver etc. in

Hesiod.

-starman

http://www.DrStarman.net

December 17, 2002

In a message dated 12/17/2002 1:34:17 PM Central Standard Time,

DRStarman2001 writes:

> I wasn't aware when I joined this list that it was mainly people

> arguing for ONLY sidereal astrology, and ignoring the twelve months of the

> year.

is DrStarman nuts? the name of the group is

SIDEREALASTROLOGY (AT) (DOT) COM. a remedial reading course may be in order

4 u.

Oh and by the way: i'm all in favor of either few less or a few more than 12

months a year, so whever y'all decide which it's gonna be, hook me up so i

can reprogram my vcr. Also i wouldn't mind a few less hours in a day

Monday-Friday, and a few more on Sat-Sun unless of course we can eliminate

mon-fri altogether ... again i'd need some notification for the vcr thing.

And while you're at it, winter's either too long or too short, depending on

the weather. there must be a better way to do this " season " thing. and of

course that would be tropical 24/7. /// wing

December 17, 2002

Shamiara, I'm using the sidereal zodiac (Krishnamurti ayanamsa). I used the

Tropical zodiac for 10 years, then switched to the western sidereal system

(Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa). Research with the navamsa chart forced me to

change over to the Krishnamurti ayanamsa. I studied the ayanamsa problem a

LOT.

I also tried out various house systems and found the Indian equal house the

most accurate for natal astrology. That puts the ascendant degree on the

cusps of all the houses, and the houses extend 15 degrees on either side of

the cusps. But for yogas I use sign-as-house.

I tend to stay with Western sidereal concepts in looking at solar and lunar

return charts, but I don't use the Campanus house system. I think to really

understand the use of return charts you have to have the Tropical and

sidereal charts side-by-side in at least 20 cases, and after comparing

these charts with what actully happened that year (or month) you get a

picture of how the sidereal charts work.

Terese

At 02:57 PM 12/17/02 +1030, you wrote:

>

>Hi all,

>

>Which House System and which Zodiac are most of you using?

>

>Have some of you come out of a Tropical background? The reason that I ask

is that I would be interested to hear about Solar and Lunar Returns and the

success that you have reading them when you use the Sidereal Zodiac as

opposed to the Tropical?

>

>Shamira

December 17, 2002

>I wasn't aware when I joined this list that it was mainly people arguing for

ONLY sidereal astrology, and ignoring the twelve months of the year.

cpwing44 writes:

> is DrStarman nuts? the name of the group is

> SIDEREALASTROLOGY (AT) (DOT) COM. a remedial reading course may be in

> order 4 u.

******Well, one can always hope that snotty responses are not the level of

discussion for an Internet group; we'll have to see if this sort of asinine

insulting of people is the norm here. If so, it won't take an astrologer to

predict the future of the group.

To attempt to enlighten the poster who is clearly ignorant of the practice

of astrology, there are lots of astrologers who experiment with both tropical

and sidereal astrology techniques, as well as Cosmobiology, harmonics, and

any number of other things, No. 1; and lots of people don't feel that any one

system automatically invalidates all others, No. 2. No. 3, there are also

people who don't feel they have to insult the intelligence of anyone with a

different opinion than themselves in order to feel like big shots. In fact,

no one I know would go to any so-called " astrologer " with an attitude like

that, and anyone foolish enough to do so would certainly not come back a

second time.

Dr. Starman

http://www.DrStarman.net

December 17, 2002

I won't bother to comment on the substance or accuracy of this essay because I

find nothing it that I strongly disagree with. But In your first line you said

this

I wasn't aware when I joined this list that it was mainly people

arguing for ONLY sidereal astrology, and ignoring the twelve months of the

year.

I can join more than a million clubs to read arguments in favor of Tropical

Astrology so why would I come to one named Sidereal Astrology which I discovered

by following a link from the Mission Astrology website. I wouldn't.

I am by far the baby of the group but I do have some strong ideas about what I

will and will not accept.

DRStarman2001 wrote: