Fagan. Schnabel. Guinard.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/6/2004 5:40:30 PM Central Daylight Time,

kyuseiki writes:

It is in essence an aberration

to make a Virgo from a Libra or an Aries from a Pisces, because the

current interpretation of the Zodiac (i.e., those meanings laden with

astrological history), has been developed within the framework of

'tropical astrology.'

" those meanings laden with astrological history " refutes the tropical scheme,

not the sidereal. tropicalist interpretation is rife with meanings and

rulerships originally ascribed to the sidereal signs. there may be gaps in the

sidereal literature, due to the ignorance within the tropical hegemony. there is

a

gigantic truth which ithe tropicalist meets with a blind eye: when you look

at the moon amidst the stars of leo or virgo or taurus or whichever, you must

believe what you see. Only fools cannot find this fundamental truth. If the

tropical community were one bit interested in furthering the science of

astrology, they would join forces, accept the sidereal " view " (literally, not

figuratively, as the tropicalist is wont to do), and devote their research to

that

end. Unfortunately, though, astrology long-ago became a coffeetable-book. ///

chris wing ///

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, cpwing44@a... wrote:

 

> gigantic truth which ithe tropicalist meets with a blind eye: when

you look

> at the moon amidst the stars of leo or virgo or taurus or whichever,

you must

> believe what you see. Only fools cannot find this fundamental truth.

If the

> tropical community were one bit interested in furthering the science of

> astrology, they would join forces, accept the sidereal " view "

(literally, not

> figuratively, as the tropicalist is wont to do), and devote their

research to that

> end. Unfortunately, though, astrology long-ago became a

coffeetable-book.

 

I agree. It is this alone that convinced me of the inherent truth in

the sidereal approach to astrology. Otherwise one ends up (as Guinard

has) with an astrology that is entirely Sun-centred, one in which the

Sun is the only star, through which all other stellar influences are

mediated. I recall that the late Dane Rudhyar wrote a book called 'The

Sun Is Also A Star' which might have been better entitled 'The Sun Is

The Only Star.' Guinard also made an error in his article: a sidereal

Aries cannot become a tropical Pisces, as he stated in his critique.

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

Chris...

 

For some it remains on the coffee table....

 

For others(and I include yourself) it will always be a kaleidoscope of

evolution, synchronism & the understanding of one's behavior and one's self.

 

Jivio

 

 

cpwing44 wrote:

In a message dated 9/6/2004 5:40:30 PM Central Daylight Time,

kyuseiki writes:

It is in essence an aberration

to make a Virgo from a Libra or an Aries from a Pisces, because the

current interpretation of the Zodiac (i.e., those meanings laden with

astrological history), has been developed within the framework of

'tropical astrology.'

" those meanings laden with astrological history " refutes the tropical scheme,

not the sidereal. tropicalist interpretation is rife with meanings and

rulerships originally ascribed to the sidereal signs. there may be gaps in the

sidereal literature, due to the ignorance within the tropical hegemony. there is

a

gigantic truth which ithe tropicalist meets with a blind eye: when you look

at the moon amidst the stars of leo or virgo or taurus or whichever, you must

believe what you see. Only fools cannot find this fundamental truth. If the

tropical community were one bit interested in furthering the science of

astrology, they would join forces, accept the sidereal " view " (literally, not

figuratively, as the tropicalist is wont to do), and devote their research to

that

end. Unfortunately, though, astrology long-ago became a coffeetable-book. ///

chris wing ///

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Andrew,

 

In response to your post, first it goes without saying that all evidence is

that the 12 sign zodiac in India was imported at a much later date than the

traditionalists believe. There are even Tropical references in a few of

India's earliest astrological texts. So as far as I'm concerned, India has

no support for a sidereal zodiac prior to Hellenistic times.

 

However, there is abundant evidence that a sidereal zodiac existed in

Mesopotamia prior to Hellenistic times. Please go to:

 

http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

Scroll down and click on " The Zodiac in Mesopotamia. "

 

Our best references regarding a sidereal zodiac are from scholarly

university sources, so I'm not sure what Patrice Guinard meant by some of

his statements. He seems to be ignorant of the lastest discoveries by David

Pingree and other scholars. I have no idea what 'the three star markers

are' in your quote below. Also, since you didn't quote Schnabel, I don't

know what he actually said.

 

Sincerely,

Therese

 

 

 

At 05:59 PM 9/6/04 -0000, you wrote:

>Hi. I am new to this list but I have a question which I hope some of

>you might be able to help me answer.

>

>Patrice Guinard writes (see link):

>

>http://cura.free.fr/10athem3.html

>

>'The theories of Cyril Fagan, as astrologer of Irish origin and the

>instigator and inspiration for western sidereal astrology, are in part

>based on this error by Schnabel. [46] In his practice, Fagan refers

>only to planetary aspects and angles...

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> In response to your post, first it goes without saying that all

evidence is

> that the 12 sign zodiac in India was imported at a much later date

than the

> traditionalists believe. There are even Tropical references in a few of

> India's earliest astrological texts. So as far as I'm concerned,

India has

> no support for a sidereal zodiac prior to Hellenistic times.

 

I agree. I have never believed that the sidereal zodiac was 'revealed'

by the rishis before it was ever known anywhere else in the world.

 

> Our best references regarding a sidereal zodiac are from scholarly

> university sources, so I'm not sure what Patrice Guinard meant by

some of

> his statements. He seems to be ignorant of the lastest discoveries

by David

> Pingree and other scholars. I have no idea what 'the three star markers

> are' in your quote below. Also, since you didn't quote Schnabel, I don't

> know what he actually said.

 

Guinard writes: 'Let us stay a moment longer with the topic of

siderealist pseudo-astrology, not because its representatives occupy a

significant place among astrologers, but rather because they are

privileged correspondants -- and the easy target -- of scientific

anti-astrology. Their principal argument concerns the supposedly

historic precedent of a so-called sidereal Zodiac. That argument

usually calls to its support the beginning of the fifth tablet of the

cosmogenic tale 'Enuma Elish' [35] created in the 2nd millenium B.C.

and recorded in a Babylonian version dating back to approximately 1200

B.C.: 'He [Marduk] gave term to the year, defined its limits, [and],

for each of the twelve months, put in place three stars.' [36] This

passage stipulates the association of only three stars with each of

the twelve months of the year, nothing more. Siderealists deduce from

that basis that there existed at that point in time a Zodiac divided

into decans based on sidereal constellations! Now, in point of fact

all one has to hand here is a *marking by the calendar* of the rising

of stars in the 36 decans of 10 days duration (assimilated only much

later into Greco-Egyptian astrology) in the course of the secular

year. Similar documents, the 'diagonal calendars,' have been found in

Egyptian tombs of the Middle Kingdom. The oldest of them dates back to

the beginning of the 21st century B.C. [37] Neugebauer has shown that

these constellations lie along a southern band rougly parallel to the

ecliptic. [38] The theories of Cyril Fagan, an astrologer of Irish

origin and the instigator and inspiration for Western sidereal

astrology, are in part based on this error by Schnabel. [46]'

 

Please see the entire essay I referenced in my initial post. Note [47]

in the essay references David Pingree, 'Astronomy and Astrology in

India and Iran,' in Isis, vol. 54, no. 2, 1963. It is certainly

possible that the latest discoveries by Pingree were made well after

1963, and that Guinard is completely unaware of these discoveries, or

chooses not to be aware of them.

 

Please note that I am not posting this material in order to cast doubt

on the sidereal system: of the validity of the sidereal zodiac I have

no doubt whatsoever. I am just wondering how best to reply to these

arguments put forth by Guinard -- if indeed any argument would ever be

accepted by him.

 

I found the following link especially helpful:

 

http://www.glenn.freehomepage.com/writings/sidereal

 

Ad astra per aspera

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> However, there is abundant evidence that a sidereal zodiac existed in

> Mesopotamia prior to Hellenistic times. Please go to:

>

> http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

>

> Scroll down and click on " The Zodiac in Mesopotamia. "

 

By the way -- this is your site? It is wonderful. I visited it for the

first time a few days ago. There is so little material available on

the web about western sidereal astrology -- there seem to be thousands

of sites dedicated to various schools of Jyotish and even thousands

more about tropical astrology of one bent or another but precious

little on siderealism or Cyril Fagan.

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

At 02:55 AM 9/8/04 -0000, Andrew wrote:

>>

>> http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

>>

>> Scroll down and click on " The Zodiac in Mesopotamia. "

>

>By the way -- this is your site? It is wonderful. I visited it for the

>first time a few days ago. There is so little material available on

>the web about western sidereal astrology -- there seem to be thousands

>of sites dedicated to various schools of Jyotish and even thousands

>more about tropical astrology of one bent or another but precious

>little on siderealism or Cyril Fagan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Yes, it's my site. Thank you, Andrew. I've been sidetracked from finishing

the remaining nine signs. The coming election and other current events keep

getting in the way. For many years I've thought about the sidereal signs,

and so I'm putting my thoughts out there for consideration and possible

modification. Not all siderealists like my site!

 

Fagan got some sign principles right, but he really didn't have enough time

to think everything through, and he ran out of time to thoroughly test

various concepts. He didn't have AstroDatabank with it's 22,000 mostly

timed charts and a computer to run off 50 charts a day. Since Fagan left

us, siderealists have pretty much departed from sign symbolism in favor of

return charts and angularity. In my humble opinion, sidereal sign symbolism

(both western sidereal and Jyotish) has become thoroughly messed up. So I'm

doing what I can to suggest new ways of looking at sidereal signs.

 

I don't get very many compliments, so thanks!

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> Fagan got some sign principles right, but he really didn't have

enough time

> to think everything through, and he ran out of time to thoroughly test

> various concepts. He didn't have AstroDatabank with it's 22,000 mostly

> timed charts and a computer to run off 50 charts a day. Since Fagan

left

> us, siderealists have pretty much departed from sign symbolism in

favor of

> return charts and angularity. In my humble opinion, sidereal sign

symbolism

> (both western sidereal and Jyotish) has become thoroughly messed up.

So I'm

> doing what I can to suggest new ways of looking at sidereal signs.

 

This is probably true. My astrology background is in traditional

natal, predictive, horary, electional, relationship and medical

astrology. By 'traditional' I mean the late medieval tradition

embodied in the works of Lilly, Coley, and later writers like

Simmonite and Sepharial. One of my ancestors was a prominent British

astrologer and Theosophist who did a lot of astrological research and

I believe that I may have inherited his penchant for investigation.

Traditionalists would decry my use of the sidereal zodiac and

siderealists might dismiss the application of traditional techniques

to the sidereal zodiac. But I ended up exploring and ultimately

adopting the sidereal zodiac precisely because it works well with

these medieval and renaissance techniques. Not in fatalistic ways of

course but in the sense of providing much deeper insight into charts.

 

Ad astra per aspera

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

Hi Therese,

 

Cyril said somewhere that it was Maurice Wemyss who introduced

him to the sidereal zodiac. Go to his 5 vol. Wheel of Life where you

find over and over, " in the Constellations " , etc. I believe that's where

Fagan picked it up.

 

I should think the conclusions of a uniquely sensitive and psychic chart

superior to a merely yeoman grasp of any batch of computer generated

charts. You might want to check out Fagan's transit " openings " for the

dates of his various discoveries. It was Blackwell who privately rectified

his chart to the Sun exactly culminating. There is sometimes a knowing

that precludes all testing. But any of the various times for Fagan are

blindingly impressive to my eyes.

 

There are still all kinds of siderealists. Some of us use Placidian houses

and pant after sign symbolism as well as angularity. In fact it was only

Sidereal that brought me to a warm appreciation of Tropical astrology.

I see the former as skye zodiac and the latter as earth zodiac. I swim

in both schools.

 

Hey, you have a very interesting site! Did I never tell you?

 

Dark*Star

---------------------------

 

Therese Hamilton wrote:

 

> At 02:55 AM 9/8/04 -0000, Andrew wrote:

> >>

> >> http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

> >>

> >> Scroll down and click on " The Zodiac in Mesopotamia. "

> >

> >By the way -- this is your site? It is wonderful. I visited it for the

> >first time a few days ago.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Yes, it's my site. Thank you, Andrew. I've been sidetracked from finishing

> the remaining nine signs. The coming election and other current events keep

> getting in the way. For many years I've thought about the sidereal signs,

> and so I'm putting my thoughts out there for consideration and possible

> modification. Not all siderealists like my site!

>

> Fagan got some sign principles right, but he really didn't have enough time

> to think everything through, and he ran out of time to thoroughly test

> various concepts. He didn't have AstroDatabank with it's 22,000 mostly

> timed charts and a computer to run off 50 charts a day. Since Fagan left

> us, siderealists have pretty much departed from sign symbolism in favor of

> return charts and angularity. In my humble opinion, sidereal sign symbolism

> (both western sidereal and Jyotish) has become thoroughly messed up. So I'm

> doing what I can to suggest new ways of looking at sidereal signs.

>

> I don't get very many compliments, so thanks!

>

> Therese

[Guest guest]

ps...Fagan has Aldebaran on the MC of his Diurnal today

and for esoterica...ASC = Baker's Vulcan/New Moon...

which would be a supreme astrological signature.

d*s...

 

Dark Star wrote:

 

> Hi Therese,

>

> Cyril said somewhere that...