Sidereal/Tropical Zodiacs

[Guest guest]

At 05:09 AM 4/18/03 -0000, Ed wrote:

 

>My hope would be that we can use both zodiacs with equal respect.

 

This is not logical. Either there is only one astrological zodiac, or there

is no zodiac at all. They both cannot work. The question is whether the

planets do or don't precess for astrological purposes. Here's an example:

 

Take the USA chart for July 4, 1776 and the chart for the foundation of

Baghdad.

 

The two sidereal charts show that Mars is only one minute (yes, one minute)

different in longitude in the two charts. And this Mars opposes the

ascendant of the Baghdad chart. So the USA makes war on Baghdad just as

transiting Saturn conjoins this Mars. No question of the symbolism here.

 

The Tropical Baghadad chart has Venus at 2 Cancer. Would anyone debate that

Venus stands for peace? And what do we see in the USA chart?! Venus is at 2

Cancer and Jupiter at 5 Cancer. A nice conjunction of peaceful planets!!

The opposing Mars in the Baghdad tropical chart is at 7 Gemini. Well, I

suppose you could make a weak case for the USA Uranus being in 9 Gemini.

But where are the major mutual transits in the two charts setting off the

war??

 

The problem with using the USA chart alone is that not enough time has

passed since 1776 to make the differences in transits clear. That's why the

very old chart of Baghdad is so valuable for zodiac research. And I would

suggest that a few other ancient accurately timed mundane charts would go a

long way to settle the precession question--if the transits during key

events were compared to the Trop/Sid charts.

 

>The sun's cycle is pretty important, and the sidereal zodiac does not

>take it into consideration; planetary and stellar declinations are

>dependent upon the trop zod.

 

I don't consider any of this relevant. The question is precession vs.

non-precession. It's that simple. Longitudes of planets are not dependent

upon declination, except as astrononmers are accustomed to measure

positions and and convert them today. As I recall, this entire question of

solar cycle and astronomical measurement has already been discussed on this

board, so I don't think we need to go into it again.

 

>My whole point all along is that we are being offered a false dilemma

>by those who insist we must choose between one zodiac or another.

>Both have their merits.

 

I challenge you to show us what merit the Tropical zodiac has for timing of

current events in a few more ancient accurately timed mundane charts.

 

>And, furthermore, it is always good to know when certian fixed

>stars " go cardinal. "

 

I would agree that when the spring/autumn equinox points reach various

stars that they should certainly be significant. I'm working on research

relating to that now. BUT...that says nothing about a zodiac. It's simply

related to the precessional cycle against the backdrop of stars.

 

(And what happens if there is even a very small axis shift, as some

predict? Where is the Tropical zodiac then, if suddenly the equinoxes shift

a few degrees from their current positions? Yes, I know. The idea of an

axis shift is pretty far out there.)

 

Right now, two stars in Auriga are doing just

>that. Some reputable astrologers have suggested that the four stars

>in Auriga are the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Coinkidink?

 

Very interesting!! Is Armageddon almost here? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

 

Therese