Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 <<Unfortunately then you avoid the question. How would YOU try to convince someone that there is a sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in astrological delineation?>> I answered that partially. I think it is a futile exercise to put astrological systems or techniques to compete. " To convince others " is a psychological need that some people feel or have, not a necessity in any school of thought. That would be religion, not astrology. The sidereal zodiac is a historical and astronomical reality. People need to study, to learn and understand certain historical and astronomical facts, not to be convinced that " this is better " . <<I agree with you because the bottom line is results in forecasting correctly and sidereal is superior to tropical because it accounts for precession.>> The bottom line is that there are many ways of practicing astrology. In the type of astrological counseling I give it is the meaning of experience and the many possibilities open for the future what matters, not correct or accurate forecasting. I respect astrologers who are looking for " correct forecasting " , but I am not interested in that. What I look for is accurate correspondence or concordance between experience and astrological indications. Astrology is a wonderful tool for the re-interpretation of the past and the re-ordering of present reality which is the basis of the type of counseling I give. <<Keep in mind though that many tropicalists alter their calculations and allow for precession.>> I have been one of them all my life. Recently, though, I have been using sidereal-only sign notation because of the confusion and misunderstanding that working all the time with precession-corrections produces in many tropical astrologers who do not understand what precession is about, and which I feel are a majority. <<Not all siderealists " require " the " bija correction " . Cyril Fagan postulated the use of the Bija rate in his book " Primer of Sidereal Astrology " . Unfortunately he never wrote later in life that he still held that conviction as some people who knew him contend that he waffled. I know of siderealists that have done research which disputed Fagan's written contention of utilizing the " bija rate " . I felt for years that the logic of its' use was substantial but recall having mixed results.>> Fine. Thanks for the insight on Fagan. But in my view without the bijas " sidereal " is corrupted to SIMPLY a different starting point for the zodiac, while working tropically in dynamical computations except transits, and this is a horrendous incongruence and contradiction. <<The Bija rate as presented by Fagan was to be utilized when progressing charts.>> Bijas (i.e. " small corrections " ) are not needed when the principles involved are understood and calculations are done using sidereal time-units. The equivalence of the bija-correction when working with transits sidereally is the accumulated precession between the 2 dates (radical and transit). > Many programs have the capability of showing > positions in some conventional sidereal zodiac, but > they never apply precession to their calculations, <<They claim that they do.. Are you confusing precession with the Bija rate?>> Transits in any sidereal zodiac already incorporate the precession corrections, making them unnecessary, so the " bija " or various " bijas " are not needed, while using sidereal transits and not using sidereal progressions or time-units (as when you do *not* use the " bija " rate, which is the equivalent of working with tropical progressions no matter the zodiac you use) is an astronomical inconsistency or absurdity. > All time calculations are affected by precession through an " acceleration " of sidereal = 1.002738 x tropical. <<Solar Fire I believe utilizes .00237909>> Thanks for the info. That would be the same acceleration applied in an alternative way or formula. > Both Winstar and Solar Fire calculate wrongly sidereal progressions. They simply use sidereal signs and keep calculating with the tropical year. This is not " sidereal " but strictly tropical, no matter what zodiac the positions are shown in. <<I don't think so Juan... I just did the calculations utilizing Solar Fire and came up with the Progressed Boyd Moon 3 Cap 44 on 911. I utilized the Bija Rate in the calculations.>> Thanks for this clarification on Solar Fire. I had checked Winstar 2 and Solar Fire 4. I may have missed it, which is easy since I never use them. <<I agree with your explanation with regards to traps... Its as classic as the dog chasing its tail.. I agree with you and Ed when it comes to focusing on the interaction of the planets. Cosmobiologists is a classic representation of looking at the " stars " (planets)(cosmos) in a biological mindset(chemical molecular structure=planetary inter-relationship).>> <<In a sense the constellations offer man's historical record and I believe understanding the past enriches one's ability to move forward. Rupert Gleadow's " Origin of the Zodiac " is always great reading as it reminds me of the heritage given astrologers. Studying the " signs " gives me insight. If anyone believes the signs are irrelative then I suggest they remove them completely from their work(charts).>> Personally, what I believe is that they are relevant for some astrologers, not for others (I included). When I sometimes use them (usually only when interpreting the Moon or when choosing between contiguous Ascendants), I use the tropical zodiac because it is what I have used all my life, but I think sidereal signs are closer to what I feel is the spiritual realities of what I am seeing or perceiving. This, however, is something that I would never want to " prove " or convince others about. Rather than " convince " , I think one should try to " educate " . I agree with Starman that sidereal signs and tropical signs are both valid from different or complementary perspectives. Understanding these different perspectives is what matters. <<This is the time as Uranus moves into and through revolutionary minded Aquarius(or is that the other way around) that we exercise our wings(how about ya chris).Juan and Ed are pushing envelopes to expand and challenge our intelligence and belief systems as well as their own. It is about the interaction of the planets with ourselves that is most relaitive.>> Ed and I and many others, not just cosmobiologists but many Western sidereal astrologers. I educated myself to get free from thinking in terms of signs by reading the work of brilliant siderealists over the years in " American Astrology " . It was Western sidereal astrologers from whom I learned to disregard the signs and open my mind to new paradigms. Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 , " prec2nod <hylonome@r...> " > Ed and I and many others, not just cosmobiologists but many Western sidereal astrologers. I educated myself to get free from thinking in terms of signs by reading the work of brilliant siderealists over the years in " American Astrology " . It was Western sidereal astrologers from whom I learned to disregard the signs and open my mind to new paradigms. Juan, I own you a lot as far as this thinking goes. You made sense of the asteroid problem for me, which was a big step. Glad to see you here on this list (where I have already aggravated everyone in just five weeks). - Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2003 Report Share Posted January 15, 2003 --- " prec2nod <hylonome " <hylonome wrote: > <<Unfortunately then you avoid the question. How > would YOU try to convince someone that there is a > sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in > astrological delineation?>> > > I answered that partially. I think it is a futile > exercise to put astrological systems or techniques > to compete. " To convince others " is a psychological > need that some people feel or have, not a necessity > in any school of thought. That would be religion, > not astrology. > > The sidereal zodiac is a historical and astronomical > reality. People need to study, to learn and > understand certain historical and astronomical > facts, not to be convinced that " this is better " . > > I understand your point of view. Another perspective is to view Terese's question differently as I did not read that Terese was asking for a comparison with Tropical. That one was better than the other. > <<I agree with you because the bottom line is > results in forecasting correctly and sidereal is > superior to tropical because it accounts for > precession.>> > > The bottom line is that there are many ways of > practicing astrology. Do we now quibble about " bottom lines " ? There are numerous perspectives to take at any given time. In the type of astrological > counseling I give it is the meaning of experience > and the many possibilities open for the future what > matters, not correct or accurate forecasting. I > respect astrologers who are looking for " correct > forecasting " , but I am not interested in that. What > I look for is accurate correspondence or concordance > between experience and astrological indications. > Astrology is a wonderful tool for the > re-interpretation of the past and the re-ordering of > present reality which is the basis of the type of > counseling I give. > You express a " fresh " perspective and an appreciation of conscious development. > <<Keep in mind though that many tropicalists alter > their calculations and allow for precession.>> > > I have been one of them all my life. Recently, > though, I have been using sidereal-only sign > notation because of the confusion and > misunderstanding that working all the time with > precession-corrections produces in many tropical > astrologers who do not understand what precession is > about, and which I feel are a majority. > Glad to see that you have made the shift to " sidereal notations " . Who knows where this will lead? > > <<Not all siderealists " require " the " bija > correction " . Cyril Fagan postulated the use of the > Bija rate in his book " Primer of Sidereal > Astrology " . Unfortunately he never wrote later in > life that he still held that conviction as some > people who knew him contend that he waffled. I know > of siderealists that have done research which > disputed Fagan's written contention of utilizing the > " bija rate " . I felt for years that the logic of its' > use was substantial but recall having mixed > results.>> > > Fine. Thanks for the insight on Fagan. But in my > view without the bijas " sidereal " is corrupted to > SIMPLY a different starting point for the zodiac, > while working tropically in dynamical computations > except transits, and this is a horrendous > incongruence and contradiction. I understand your feelings... Spock would agree with you that it is " logical " . > > > <<The Bija rate as presented by Fagan was to be > utilized when progressing charts.>> > > Bijas (i.e. " small corrections " ) are not needed when > the principles involved are understood and > calculations are done using sidereal time-units. The > equivalence of the bija-correction when working with > transits sidereally is the accumulated precession > between the 2 dates (radical and transit). > > Hmmm, Your position then is to abolish the " standard rate " and simply incorporate bija's into precession calculatons as needed without identifying them? As I mentioned in the previous thread... I am familiar with research that has demonstrated greater accuracy with the Standard rate. Since there are about 10 different " viable " techniques afforded individuals to progress charts I'm for keeping the option of choosing between Standard Rate and Bija Rate. It allows the " student " the opportunity to learn through their own research. > > Many programs have the capability of showing > > positions in some conventional sidereal zodiac, > but > > they never apply precession to their calculations, > > <<They claim that they do.. Are you confusing > precession with the Bija rate?>> > > Transits in any sidereal zodiac already incorporate > the precession corrections, making them unnecessary, > so the " bija " or various " bijas " are not needed, > while using sidereal transits and not using sidereal > progressions or time-units (as when you do *not* use > the " bija " rate, which is the equivalent of working > with tropical progressions no matter the zodiac you > use) is an astronomical inconsistency or absurdity. > > I agree with the logic but I prefer choice. Hopefully some of the " lurkers " will step forward and share their experiences researching " Bija " . > > All time calculations are affected by precession > through an " acceleration " of sidereal = 1.002738 x > tropical. > > <<Solar Fire I believe utilizes .00237909>> > > Thanks for the info. That would be the same > acceleration applied in an alternative way or > formula. > > > > Both Winstar and Solar Fire calculate wrongly > sidereal progressions. They simply use sidereal > signs and keep calculating with the tropical year. > This is not " sidereal " but strictly tropical, no > matter what zodiac the positions are shown in. > > <<I don't think so Juan... I just did the > calculations utilizing Solar Fire and came up with > the Progressed Boyd Moon 3 Cap 44 on 911. I utilized > the Bija Rate in the calculations.>> > > Thanks for this clarification on Solar Fire. I had > checked Winstar 2 and Solar Fire 4. I may have > missed it, which is easy since I never use them. > > > <<I agree with your explanation with regards to > traps... Its as classic as the dog chasing its > tail.. I agree with you and Ed when it comes to > focusing on the interaction of the planets. > Cosmobiologists is a classic representation of > looking at the " stars " (planets)(cosmos) in a > biological mindset(chemical molecular > structure=planetary inter-relationship).>> > > <<In a sense the constellations offer man's > historical record and I believe understanding the > past enriches one's ability to move forward. Rupert > Gleadow's " Origin of the Zodiac " is always great > reading as it reminds me of the heritage given > astrologers. Studying the " signs " gives me insight. > If anyone believes the signs are irrelative then I > suggest they remove them completely from their > work(charts).>> > > Personally, what I believe is that they are relevant > for some astrologers, not for others (I included). > When I sometimes use them (usually only when > interpreting the Moon or when choosing between > contiguous Ascendants), I use the tropical zodiac > because it is what I have used all my life, but I > think sidereal signs are closer to what I feel is > the spiritual realities of what I am seeing or > perceiving. This, however, is something that I would > never want to " prove " or convince others about. > > Rather than " convince " , I think one should try to > " educate " . I agree with Starman that sidereal signs > and tropical signs are both valid from different or > complementary perspectives. Understanding these > different perspectives is what matters. > > I agree with that too.. Its about recognizing a cycle. Today was CapSolar2003. The beginning of a " sidereal " cycle where the Sun enters the Constellation of Capricorn. Back in December we experienced the " Shortest " day of the year and the Sun entered the Tropical sign of Capricorn. Two different cycles... two different perspectives... both valid. I can't think of a sideralist that I know that would dispute that.... Well... maybe somebody... > <<This is the time as Uranus moves into and through > revolutionary minded Aquarius(or is that the other > way around) that we exercise our wings(how about ya > chris).Juan and Ed are pushing envelopes to expand > and challenge our intelligence and belief systems as > well as their own. It is about the interaction of > the planets with ourselves that is most relaitive.>> > > Ed and I and many others, not just cosmobiologists > but many Western sidereal astrologers. Thanks for saying that.... cuz after re-reading my post I had wanted to say the same thing. I educated > myself to get free from thinking in terms of signs > by reading the work of brilliant siderealists over > the years in " American Astrology " . It was Western > sidereal astrologers from whom I learned to > disregard the signs and open my mind to new > paradigms. > > Juan > > I know the " brilliant siderealists " would appreciate hearing how they had helped " push the envelope " 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: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 --- " prec2nod <hylonome " <hylonome wrote: > <<Unfortunately then you avoid the question. How > would YOU try to convince someone that there is a > sidereal zodiac and that the signs work in > astrological delineation?>> > > I answered that partially. I think it is a futile > exercise to put astrological systems or techniques > to compete. " To convince others " is a psychological > need that some people feel or have, not a necessity > in any school of thought. That would be religion, > not astrology. > > The sidereal zodiac is a historical and astronomical > reality. People need to study, to learn and > understand certain historical and astronomical > facts, not to be convinced that " this is better " . > > I understand your point of view. Another perspective is to view Terese's question differently as I did not read that Terese was asking for a comparison with Tropical. > <<I agree with you because the bottom line is > results in forecasting correctly and sidereal is > superior to tropical because it accounts for > precession.>> > > The bottom line is that there are many ways of > practicing astrology. Do we now quibble about " bottom lines " ? There are numerous perspectives to take at any given time. In the type of astrological > counseling I give it is the meaning of experience > and the many possibilities open for the future what > matters, not correct or accurate forecasting. I > respect astrologers who are looking for " correct > forecasting " , but I am not interested in that. What > I look for is accurate correspondence or concordance > between experience and astrological indications. > Astrology is a wonderful tool for the > re-interpretation of the past and the re-ordering of > present reality which is the basis of the type of > counseling I give. > You express a " fresh " perspective and an appreciation of conscious development. > <<Keep in mind though that many tropicalists alter > their calculations and allow for precession.>> > > I have been one of them all my life. Recently, > though, I have been using sidereal-only sign > notation because of the confusion and > misunderstanding that working all the time with > precession-corrections produces in many tropical > astrologers who do not understand what precession is > about, and which I feel are a majority. > Glad to see that you have made the shift to " sidereal notations " . Who knows where this will lead? > > <<Not all siderealists " require " the " bija > correction " . Cyril Fagan postulated the use of the > Bija rate in his book " Primer of Sidereal > Astrology " . Unfortunately he never wrote later in > life that he still held that conviction as some > people who knew him contend that he waffled. I know > of siderealists that have done research which > disputed Fagan's written contention of utilizing the > " bija rate " . I felt for years that the logic of its' > use was substantial but recall having mixed > results.>> > > Fine. Thanks for the insight on Fagan. But in my > view without the bijas " sidereal " is corrupted to > SIMPLY a different starting point for the zodiac, > while working tropically in dynamical computations > except transits, and this is a horrendous > incongruence and contradiction. I understand your feelings... Spock would agree with you that it is " logical " . > > > <<The Bija rate as presented by Fagan was to be > utilized when progressing charts.>> > > Bijas (i.e. " small corrections " ) are not needed when > the principles involved are understood and > calculations are done using sidereal time-units. The > equivalence of the bija-correction when working with > transits sidereally is the accumulated precession > between the 2 dates (radical and transit). > > Hmmm, Your position then is to abolish the " standard rate " and simply incorporate bija's into precession calculatons as needed without identifying them? As I mentioned in the previous thread... I am familiar with research that has demonstrated greater accuracy with the Standard rate. Since there are about 10 different " viable " techniques afforded individuals to progress charts I'm for keeping the option of choosing between Standard Rate and Bija Rate. It allows the " student " the opportunity to learn through their own research. > > Many programs have the capability of showing > > positions in some conventional sidereal zodiac, > but > > they never apply precession to their calculations, > > <<They claim that they do.. Are you confusing > precession with the Bija rate?>> > > Transits in any sidereal zodiac already incorporate > the precession corrections, making them unnecessary, > so the " bija " or various " bijas " are not needed, > while using sidereal transits and not using sidereal > progressions or time-units (as when you do *not* use > the " bija " rate, which is the equivalent of working > with tropical progressions no matter the zodiac you > use) is an astronomical inconsistency or absurdity. > > I agree with the logic but I prefer choice. Hopefully some of the " lurkers " will step forward and share their experiences researching " Bija " . > > All time calculations are affected by precession > through an " acceleration " of sidereal = 1.002738 x > tropical. > > <<Solar Fire I believe utilizes .00237909>> > > Thanks for the info. That would be the same > acceleration applied in an alternative way or > formula. > > > > Both Winstar and Solar Fire calculate wrongly > sidereal progressions. They simply use sidereal > signs and keep calculating with the tropical year. > This is not " sidereal " but strictly tropical, no > matter what zodiac the positions are shown in. > > <<I don't think so Juan... I just did the > calculations utilizing Solar Fire and came up with > the Progressed Boyd Moon 3 Cap 44 on 911. I utilized > the Bija Rate in the calculations.>> > > Thanks for this clarification on Solar Fire. I had > checked Winstar 2 and Solar Fire 4. I may have > missed it, which is easy since I never use them. > > > <<I agree with your explanation with regards to > traps... Its as classic as the dog chasing its > tail.. I agree with you and Ed when it comes to > focusing on the interaction of the planets. > Cosmobiologists is a classic representation of > looking at the " stars " (planets)(cosmos) in a > biological mindset(chemical molecular > structure=planetary inter-relationship).>> > > <<In a sense the constellations offer man's > historical record and I believe understanding the > past enriches one's ability to move forward. Rupert > Gleadow's " Origin of the Zodiac " is always great > reading as it reminds me of the heritage given > astrologers. Studying the " signs " gives me insight. > If anyone believes the signs are irrelative then I > suggest they remove them completely from their > work(charts).>> > > Personally, what I believe is that they are relevant > for some astrologers, not for others (I included). > When I sometimes use them (usually only when > interpreting the Moon or when choosing between > contiguous Ascendants), I use the tropical zodiac > because it is what I have used all my life, but I > think sidereal signs are closer to what I feel is > the spiritual realities of what I am seeing or > perceiving. This, however, is something that I would > never want to " prove " or convince others about. > > Rather than " convince " , I think one should try to > " educate " . I agree with Starman that sidereal signs > and tropical signs are both valid from different or > complementary perspectives. Understanding these > different perspectives is what matters. > > I agree with that too.. Its about recognizing a cycle. Today was CapSolar2003. The beginning of a " sidereal " cycle where the Sun enters the Constellation of Capricorn. Back in December we experienced the " Shortest " day of the year and the Sun entered the Tropical sign of Capricorn. Two different cycles... two different perspectives... both valid. I can't think of a sideralist that I know that would dispute that.... Well... maybe somebody... > <<This is the time as Uranus moves into and through > revolutionary minded Aquarius(or is that the other > way around) that we exercise our wings(how about ya > chris).Juan and Ed are pushing envelopes to expand > and challenge our intelligence and belief systems as > well as their own. It is about the interaction of > the planets with ourselves that is most relaitive.>> > > Ed and I and many others, not just cosmobiologists > but many Western sidereal astrologers. Thanks for saying that.... cuz after re-reading my post I had wanted to say the same thing. I educated > myself to get free from thinking in terms of signs > by reading the work of brilliant siderealists over > the years in " American Astrology " . It was Western > sidereal astrologers from whom I learned to > disregard the signs and open my mind to new > paradigms. > > Juan > > I know the " brilliant siderealists " would appreciate hearing how they had helped " push the envelope " 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: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > I agree with that too.. Its about recognizing a cycle. > Today was CapSolar2003. The beginning of a " sidereal " > cycle where the Sun enters the Constellation of > Capricorn. Juan Olliver, Please get your terminology right!! The Sun does not enter the constellation of Capricorn today. It enters the sidereal zodiac sign of Capricorn today. Using IAU boundaries, the Sun enters the constellation of Capricorn on the 20th. The word " constellation " means " grouping of stars. " Signs are not meant to reflect the stellar groupings, but only to approximate them. - Ed K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 --- " Ed Kohout <crumpo " <crumpo wrote: > , Juan > Oliver <jivio> > wrote: > > > I agree with that too.. Its about recognizing a > cycle. > > Today was CapSolar2003. The beginning of a > " sidereal " > > cycle where the Sun enters the Constellation of > > Capricorn. > > Juan Olliver, > > Please get your terminology right. I did Ed... You get yours... 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: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 <<Hmmm, Your position then is to abolish the " standard rate " and simply incorporate bija's into precession calculatons as needed without identifying them?>> Not to " abolish " what is a question of individual choice, this is not what I am saying. Bija rates and bija corrections are not needed when you work directly with sidereal time-units. In dynamical terms (i.e., transits, progressions, directions...) you simply work sidereally or tropically. Talk about " bijas " shows that one is still thinking in tropical terms. This terminology comes from the times when there were no computers and you had to work with tropical ephemerides and standard tropical procedures. Now it is an anachronism. You don't have to identify what is not used nor needed. When writing --and using-- software it is a simple matter of using tropical time-units (no bija) or sidereal time units (with bija). Working without " bija rates " means that you are working tropically. Juan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 --- " prec2nod <hylonome " <hylonome wrote: Talk about " bijas " shows that one is > still thinking in tropical terms. > > This terminology comes from the times when there > were no computers and you had to work with tropical > ephemerides and standard tropical procedures. Now it > is an anachronism. > > You don't have to identify what is not used nor > needed. Fortunately with some software, options are provided to allow its users to do their own research and determine what is to be used or needed. The " Standard rate of progression " of a Solar day being equal to 24 " conventional " hours or the " Bija " corrected rate of progression consisting of 24 hours of Sidereal time. In other words what is a day? Standard(Solar)rate= 4 minutes of time difference per (day)year. Bija(Sidereal)rate= 3 minutes & 55.91 seconds " " " . As I mentioned " in previous threads " " logic " dictates that siderealists " should " use " Sidereal Time instead of Conventional time but some siderealists who have studied and researched this " issue " contend that the " Standard rate " provides greater accuracy. For that reason alone I respect having the option to choose between the rates. Are progressions of tropical origin(Arabic)? Keep in mind as well that some siderealists do not to the value of progressions and hence do not utilize them. When writing --and using-- software it is a > simple matter of using tropical time-units (no bija) > or sidereal time units (with bija). Working without > " bija rates " means that you are working tropically. > > Juan > We disagree with regards to definition of sidereal or as you refer to it " sidereal time units " . I contend that utilizing the solar day rate is an " option " . Then we have the angle's to consider.... Would you consider the mean quotidian rate tropical? Out of curiosity do you calculate in " mean " or " apparent " motion? 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: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 <<Fortunately with some software, options are provided to allow its users to do their own research and determine what is to be used or needed...>> I am not questioning what you are saying about having the options in software for choosing what you prefer. Let me try with different words: The use of " bijas " is an algorithm, a calculation procedure or " trick " where tropical measurements are used to arrive at sidereal results. You can arrive at the same sidereal results directly without having to go tropical first and without involving the concept of " bija " . <<We disagree with regards to definition of sidereal or as you refer to it " sidereal time units " . I contend that utilizing the solar day rate is an " option " .>> Things must be called by what they are. " Standard rate " is a rate based on the tropical year, the tropical lunar month, the tropical (or solar) day, etc. " Bija rate " uses their sidereal counterparts. To call these " bija " or " standard " instead of what they are (sidereal or tropical) only serves to cloud the fact that every sidereal astrologer working with " standard rate " for secondary and tertiary progressions as well as primary directions, while at the same time calculating transits over the sidereal zodiac, is mixing coordinate planes. It is the equivalent of saying " I am a siderealist, but I consistently use tropical measurements in preference to sidereal ones in some of my techniques because they work better " , or " I am a siderealist when working with transits, but a tropicalist when working with progressions and directions " . This is the case when you use a sidereal zodiac but work with the so-called " standard rate " for progressions. <<Then we have the angle's to consider.... Would you consider the mean quotidian rate tropical? Out of curiosity do you calculate in " mean " or " apparent " motion?>> I never progress the angles, so I confess my ignorance here. My only experience in progressing angles is in programming the progressed solar return, in which case I used a mean rate from one return to the next. Juan R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2003 Report Share Posted January 17, 2003 --- " prec2nod <hylonome " <hylonome wrote: > > It is the equivalent of saying " I am a siderealist, > but I consistently use tropical measurements in > preference to sidereal ones in some of my techniques > because they work better " , or " I am a siderealist > when working with transits, but a tropicalist when > working with progressions and directions " . This is > the case when you use a sidereal zodiac but work > with the so-called " standard rate " for progressions. > You express yourself and your thoughts extremely well. I'm laughing as I read the above paragraph appreciating your feelings and conviction. I agree with you in terms of the " logic " and wish it were " clear " for me as it is for you but I've seen progressed charts work both ways. Seperate cycles of time. > <<Then we have the angle's to consider.... Would you > consider the mean quotidian rate tropical? Out of > curiosity do you calculate in " mean " or " apparent " > motion?>> > > I never progress the angles, so I confess my > ignorance here. My only experience in progressing > angles is in programming the progressed solar > return, in which case I used a mean rate from one > return to the next. > > Juan R. > When using a mean rate in your PSR(Progressed Solar Return)you progress the angles. If you have a copy of Fagan's " Primer of Sidereal Astrology you can learn a number of techniques to progress the angles. You will also read within the book how Fagan calculates certain progressed charts without using the " bija " (a sanscrit word meaning correction) rate. Jivio PS: I was tempted to sign off with Juan O. but I knew the lurking comedian crumpo would change it to Guano. > > > " 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: > / > > 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.