Guest guest Posted November 16, 2003 Report Share Posted November 16, 2003 Therese, There are some of us western siderealists who cohabit with houses every hour of every day. D*S - Therese Hamilton wrote: > Actually many of the Tropoical house meanings are rejected by sidereal > astrologers. And Jyotish astrologers have some house meanings that aren't > used in the west. The whole house situation is wide open to controversy as > we learn more about how astrology works. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2003 Report Share Posted November 16, 2003 Many thanks, Therese - that's interesting, and it would make sense that Tropical and Sidereal meanings are actually different. Thanks also for offering to have a look at my Saturn and Jupiter - I'd certainly appreciate any observations you have Chris. On Sunday, November 16, 2003 7:21 AM , Therese Hamilton wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Actually many of the Tropoical house meanings are rejected by sidereal > astrologers. And Jyotish astrologers have some house meanings that > aren't used in the west. The whole house situation is wide open to > controversy as we learn more about how astrology works. > > One of the concepts that I think works the best is that houses in > trine to the ascendant are 'good' houses while those in adverse > numerical relationship--the 6th and 8th for example, tend to bring > more unpleasant results. I'm going to try to find time to set up your > chart tomorrow to check the positions of Jupiter and Saturn. You're > right--Jupiter should bring the best results according to sidereal > tenets unless it's badly placed while Saturn is well placed. That > would be a Jyotish idea rather than a western sidereal one--the good > and bad placement of planets in relation to the ascendant. > > The western sidereal system isn't very strong on natal astrology. The > emphasis is on solar and lunar return charts. On the other hand, > Jyotish is extremely strong natally while being much weaker on the > varshaphal (solar return) chart. > > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2003 Report Share Posted November 16, 2003 At 11:46 PM 11/15/03 -0800, Dark*Star wrote: >There are some of us western siderealists who >cohabit with houses every hour of every day. >D*S Hi... I didn't know that you were primarily a western siderealist! Then how about giving us your understanding of houses? Briefly, how do you interpret each house? Do you use the Campanus system to mark off the houses? The most important question is, " How do you use the houses in natal astrology? " Since there is no current western sidereal publication that I know of, there's no way for most of us to know what is going on in the sidereal community--except maybe this list and one or two others. If there's another sidereal discussion list, can you give us the URL? Thanks, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 Hi Therese, That is interesting what you wrote. Why isn't the western sidereal system very strong on natal astrology? Is it for historical reasons, since I believe Cyril Fagan started looking at the sidereal zodiac because he could not explain his observations with solar return charts? And would that imply that if one is interested mostly on natal astrology, especially the psychological side of it, one should stick to tropical Astrology (because Jyotish, as far as I read, is not very psychological)? António ----- > The western sidereal system isn't very strong on natal astrology. The > emphasis is on solar and lunar return charts. On the other hand, Jyotish > is extremely strong natally while being much weaker on the varshaphal > (solar return) chart. > > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 At 11:25 PM 11/16/03 -0000, Antonio wrote: >Hi Therese, > >That is interesting what you wrote. Why isn't the western sidereal >system very strong on natal astrology? Is it for historical reasons, >since I believe Cyril Fagan started looking at the sidereal zodiac >because he could not explain his observations with solar return >charts? Yes, it was the timing hits of the sidereal return charts that convinced Cyril Fagan of the validity of the sidereal zodiac--that and the results of his personal research into ancient history. (I'm not an expert in this area, so if I'm missing something here, I hope that a sidereal astrologer on this list will correct me.) >And would that imply that if one is interested mostly on >natal astrology, especially the psychological side of it, one should >stick to tropical Astrology (because Jyotish, as far as I read, is >not very psychological)? Although the Tropical astrologers continue to pin all kinds of psychological interpretation on the signs, almost all psychology is connected to the PLANETS. This was shown with massive evidence by the Gauquelins. Also, Jyotish has improved a lot in the area of psychology, now giving much more emphasis to the planets as psychological indicators. I've seen this in several Jyotish workshops by professionals in the field. The main problem with Tropical signs is that the planetary symbolism is very confused. Much of the Tropical sign interpretation is linked to the wrong planets, which then gives us an incorrect understanding of those planets--such as the Moon supposedly having to do with nurturing or the Sun supposedly having to do with the need for attention. Also, if an astrologer uses HOUSE RULERS, then these will be incorrect in the Tropical system. I don't know why natal interpretaion was never really developed in the western sidereal system. Maybe Fagan simply ran out of time? Or everyone was so thrilled with timing events hits that natal astrology seemed relatively uninteresting in comparison? Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 In a message dated 11/16/2003 1:49:11 AM Central Standard Time, pansophia writes: > cohabit with houses i have a small apartment. /// chriswing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 Thanks a lot, Therese, this is really good information. Cyril Fagan was born in the town where I now live (Dublin, Ireland), so that leaves me a bit curious about him. Do you know of any web site that has Cyril's biography? António , Therese Hamilton <eastwest@s...> wrote: > At 11:25 PM 11/16/03 -0000, Antonio wrote: > >Hi Therese, > > > >That is interesting what you wrote. Why isn't the western sidereal > >system very strong on natal astrology? Is it for historical reasons, > >since I believe Cyril Fagan started looking at the sidereal zodiac > >because he could not explain his observations with solar return > >charts? > > Yes, it was the timing hits of the sidereal return charts that convinced > Cyril Fagan of the validity of the sidereal zodiac--that and the results of > his personal research into ancient history. (I'm not an expert in this > area, so if I'm missing something here, I hope that a sidereal astrologer > on this list will correct me.) > > >And would that imply that if one is interested mostly on > >natal astrology, especially the psychological side of it, one should > >stick to tropical Astrology (because Jyotish, as far as I read, is > >not very psychological)? > > Although the Tropical astrologers continue to pin all kinds of > psychological interpretation on the signs, almost all psychology is > connected to the PLANETS. This was shown with massive evidence by the > Gauquelins. Also, Jyotish has improved a lot in the area of psychology, now > giving much more emphasis to the planets as psychological indicators. I've > seen this in several Jyotish workshops by professionals in the field. > > The main problem with Tropical signs is that the planetary symbolism is > very confused. Much of the Tropical sign interpretation is linked to the > wrong planets, which then gives us an incorrect understanding of those > planets--such as the Moon supposedly having to do with nurturing or the Sun > supposedly having to do with the need for attention. > > Also, if an astrologer uses HOUSE RULERS, then these will be incorrect in > the Tropical system. > > I don't know why natal interpretaion was never really developed in the > western sidereal system. Maybe Fagan simply ran out of time? Or everyone > was so thrilled with timing events hits that natal astrology seemed > relatively uninteresting in comparison? > > Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 2003 Report Share Posted November 17, 2003 At 04:44 PM 11/17/03 -0000, Antonio wrote: >Thanks a lot, Therese, this is really good information. Thanks, Antonio. My Mercury is good at collecting and dispersing information, but I'm not so good at prediction. >Cyril Fagan was born in the town where I now live (Dublin, Ireland), >so that leaves me a bit curious about him. Do you know of any web >site that has Cyril's biography? Oh, very interesting!! I know there are a couple of sites that do have his biographical information. If typing his name into a search engine doesn't work, let us know. Someone should have the URLs for the sites. I have some printed information from web sites, but right now I don't know where it is. I'm in the midst of sorting tons of papers. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 2003 Report Share Posted November 18, 2003 Antonio, The guy who knows more about Cyril Fagan than anyone on the planet is the tropical astrologer Bill Sheeran in Dublin. Address your post to: bsheeran I think you will be pleasantly surprised. Dark*Star - António wrote: > > Cyril Fagan was born in the town where I now live (Dublin, Ireland), > so that leaves me a bit curious about him. Do you know of any web > site that has Cyril's biography? > > António > > , Therese Hamilton > <eastwest@s...> wrote: > > At 11:25 PM 11/16/03 -0000, Antonio wrote: > > >Hi Therese, > > > > > >That is interesting what you wrote. Why isn't the western sidereal > > >system very strong on natal astrology? Is it for historical > reasons, > > >since I believe Cyril Fagan started looking at the sidereal zodiac > > >because he could not explain his observations with solar return > > >charts? > > > > Yes, it was the timing hits of the sidereal return charts that > convinced > > Cyril Fagan of the validity of the sidereal zodiac--that and the > results of > > his personal research into ancient history. (I'm not an expert in > this > > area, so if I'm missing something here, I hope that a sidereal > astrologer > > on this list will correct me.) > > > > >And would that imply that if one is interested mostly on > > >natal astrology, especially the psychological side of it, one > should > > >stick to tropical Astrology (because Jyotish, as far as I read, is > > >not very psychological)? > > > > Although the Tropical astrologers continue to pin all kinds of > > psychological interpretation on the signs, almost all psychology is > > connected to the PLANETS. This was shown with massive evidence by > the > > Gauquelins. Also, Jyotish has improved a lot in the area of > psychology, now > > giving much more emphasis to the planets as psychological > indicators. I've > > seen this in several Jyotish workshops by professionals in the > field. > > > > The main problem with Tropical signs is that the planetary > symbolism is > > very confused. Much of the Tropical sign interpretation is linked > to the > > wrong planets, which then gives us an incorrect understanding of > those > > planets--such as the Moon supposedly having to do with nurturing or > the Sun > > supposedly having to do with the need for attention. > > > > Also, if an astrologer uses HOUSE RULERS, then these will be > incorrect in > > the Tropical system. > > > > I don't know why natal interpretaion was never really developed in > the > > western sidereal system. Maybe Fagan simply ran out of time? Or > everyone > > was so thrilled with timing events hits that natal astrology seemed > > relatively uninteresting in comparison? > > > > Therese > > > " 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 March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, you wrote: > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading your > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other house > systems and what were your experiences with them? Sari: Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried almost all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides a lot. Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use Placidus, though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I know one professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses topocentric houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the Skyscript site by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal astrology and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default houses system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the first house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the ascending sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last degree of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one study that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs and it seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've studied the house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as Solar Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian astrologer B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the clearest results in this kind of study. The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological alphabet " philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and so on) has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the Moon: so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world and so on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about father, real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe systems etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, you'll find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about father than mother. Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 At 09:32 AM 3/16/08 +0200, Sari wrote: > >(...)Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried almost >all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and >because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides a lot... Hi Sari, Thanks so much for adding your experience to this discussion. Well, I see you as a professional. 'Professional' doesn't mean we must have clients since there is so much to study and re-learn these days. On the other hand, we are all students, and will always be students where astrology is concerned. I know you spend a tremendous amount of time on research studies with hundreds (thousands?) of charts. In my mind that's 'professional.' The NCGR Certification Program now has a Research category for professionals. Re: the 4th house, Hellenistic and later astrology always gave the 4th to both parents since they are our foundation in life. Even Lilly (CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY, 1647) gave the 4th to the father. This is why Deobrah Houlding's book is so valuable. She includes the newer findings from the recent translations of ancient texts. I found it very interesting--the variety of house systems used by Finnish astrologers! Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Hi Sari, Thank you for sharing your insight and experience with the houses. It doesn't make it any easier for me to pick one...yet :-) , but it does give me a much broader understanding of the applicability of the different house systems. I suppose in due time, I will be able to pick a house system that will give me the most confidence in my chart interpretation, but for now, I'll just keep on talking to knowledgeable folks like yourself. Thanks again for sharing! Felicia Sari M <gerdapp wrote: Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, you wrote: > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading your > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other house > systems and what were your experiences with them? Sari: Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried almost all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides a lot. Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use Placidus, though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I know one professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses topocentric houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the Skyscript site by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal astrology and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default houses system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the first house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the ascending sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last degree of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one study that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs and it seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've studied the house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as Solar Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian astrologer B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the clearest results in this kind of study. The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological alphabet " philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and so on) has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the Moon: so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world and so on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about father, real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe systems etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, you'll find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about father than mother. Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 >Re: the 4th house, Hellenistic and later astrology always gave the 4th to both parents since they are our foundation in life. Even Lilly (CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY, 1647) gave the 4th to the father Therese, I've read that the 4th can be attributed to both parents as well, but the same can be said about the 10th. This is what I find confusing sometimes. Do you attribute the 10th house to either parent? Felicia Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: At 09:32 AM 3/16/08 +0200, Sari wrote: > >(...)Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried almost >all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and >because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides a lot... Hi Sari, Thanks so much for adding your experience to this discussion. Well, I see you as a professional. 'Professional' doesn't mean we must have clients since there is so much to study and re-learn these days. On the other hand, we are all students, and will always be students where astrology is concerned. I know you spend a tremendous amount of time on research studies with hundreds (thousands?) of charts. In my mind that's 'professional.' The NCGR Certification Program now has a Research category for professionals. Re: the 4th house, Hellenistic and later astrology always gave the 4th to both parents since they are our foundation in life. Even Lilly (CHRISTIAN ASTROLOGY, 1647) gave the 4th to the father. This is why Deobrah Houlding's book is so valuable. She includes the newer findings from the recent translations of ancient texts. I found it very interesting--the variety of house systems used by Finnish astrologers! Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Sari, Therese, I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look at myself from a brand new perspective. With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much more complex. This will be interesting... I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. What does this mean? Sari M <gerdapp wrote: Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, you wrote: > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading your > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other house > systems and what were your experiences with them? Sari: Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried almost all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides a lot. Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use Placidus, though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I know one professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses topocentric houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the Skyscript site by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal astrology and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default houses system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the first house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the ascending sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last degree of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one study that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs and it seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've studied the house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as Solar Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian astrologer B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the clearest results in this kind of study. The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological alphabet " philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and so on) has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the Moon: so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world and so on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about father, real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe systems etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, you'll find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about father than mother. Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Hi Felicia, Welcome to the wacky world of sidereal astrology. I just wanted to mention that from the Jyotish side of things, the sign the Sun is in isn't actually as important for determining personality as in Western astrology. The Moon and Ascendant are much more important in that respect. The MC is still important in as a sensitive point that is associated with the 10th house, but if you use the whole sign house system, then it becomes a sort of second order 10th house cusp. Like many astrologers, I've played around with several different house systems and find there is something to all of them. But for convenience sake, I use a combination of the whole sign house system with equal house cusps and then use the unequal cusps (including the MC) as calculated by Placidus and Porphyry as extra points to look at. But that only happens when I have the time. :-) Best, Chris Felicia Hong wrote: > > Sari, Therese, > > I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an > Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look > at myself from a brand new perspective. > > With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, > impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I > have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much > more complex. > > This will be interesting... > > I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. > What does this mean? > > Sari M <gerdapp <gerdapp%40welho.com>> wrote: > Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, > > you wrote: > > > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading > your > > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other > house > > systems and what were your experiences with them? > > Sari: > > Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried > almost > all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and > because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides > a lot. > Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use Placidus, > though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I know one > professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses > topocentric > houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses > meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). > > I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling > " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the > Skyscript site > by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in > traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal astrology > and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default > houses > system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the first > house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the ascending > sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last > degree > of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. > > I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one study > that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given > house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common > features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could > think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between > different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant > systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs > and it > seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've > studied the > house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as Solar > Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start > from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the > cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian astrologer > B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the > clearest results in this kind of study. > > The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not > always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological > alphabet " > philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and > so on) > has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for > example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the > Moon: > so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world > and so > on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional > (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about > father, > real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe > systems > etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, > you'll > find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and > business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine > themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about > father than mother. > > Best, Sari > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 At 12:32 PM 3/16/08 -0700, Felicia wrote: > Therese, > I've read that the 4th can be attributed to both parents as well, but the same can be said about the 10th. This is what I find confusing sometimes. Do you attribute the 10th house to either parent? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm kind of out to lunch on the parents. It may be that the lots say more about the parents than any other astrological factor--I mean the Hellenistic Part of the Father and Part of the Mother. You look at the sitution of the lot, and also the (sidereal) dispositors. No, I haven't reserched this enough to have a set opinion. Jyotish gives either the 9th or 10th to the father depending on north or south India. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 At 01:08 PM 3/16/08 -0700, Felicia wrote: >Sari, Therese, > > I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look at myself from a brand new perspective. No you don't have to look at yourself from a different perspective, only with a different name. Any sign trait, if valid, doesn't change its place on the ecliptic. Only the NAME changes. Please see my web site and read the articles on the signs, esp. Parts 1,2 and 3. http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm > I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. > What does this mean? It means that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house! It means that the zenith point (90 degrees from the ascendant--the nonagesimal) is now the 10th house cusp, and the rulerships follow. If you want to post your data, probably some of us will take a look at it. Or you can send it to me privately. I know Bettina would like to see your data. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Felicia... No, no, no, no. A rose by any other name, etc. You have the same characteristics you've always have. In sidereal astrology the tropical Aries characteristics ARE the sidereal Pisces characteristics, pretty much. Neptune, ruler of that sign has to do with adventure, expanding horizons, blazing new trails, etc. It's not dreamy and idealistic, intuitive, and other worldly. That's Uranus. ....Bettina _____ On Behalf Of Felicia Hong Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:08 PM Re: Houses in astrology Sari, Therese, I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look at myself from a brand new perspective. With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much more complex. This will be interesting... I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. What does this mean? Sari M <gerdapp (AT) welho (DOT) <gerdapp%40welho.com> com> wrote: Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, you wrote: > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading your > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other house > systems and what were your experiences with them? Sari: Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried almost all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides a lot. Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use Placidus, though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I know one professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses topocentric houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the Skyscript site by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal astrology and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default houses system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the first house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the ascending sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last degree of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one study that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs and it seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've studied the house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as Solar Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian astrologer B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the clearest results in this kind of study. The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological alphabet " philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and so on) has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the Moon: so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world and so on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about father, real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe systems etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, you'll find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about father than mother. Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Oh no...really, Bettina? Sidereal Pisces characteristics are like tropical Aries characteristics? It seems I have a lot to learn then! Bettina <chiria wrote: Felicia... No, no, no, no. A rose by any other name, etc. You have the same characteristics you've always have. In sidereal astrology the tropical Aries characteristics ARE the sidereal Pisces characteristics, pretty much. Neptune, ruler of that sign has to do with adventure, expanding horizons, blazing new trails, etc. It's not dreamy and idealistic, intuitive, and other worldly. That's Uranus. ....Bettina _____ On Behalf Of Felicia Hong Sunday, March 16, 2008 1:08 PM Re: Houses in astrology Sari, Therese, I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look at myself from a brand new perspective. With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much more complex. This will be interesting... I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. What does this mean? Sari M <gerdapp (AT) welho (DOT) <gerdapp%40welho.com> com> wrote: Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, you wrote: > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading your > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other house > systems and what were your experiences with them? Sari: Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried almost all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides a lot. Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use Placidus, though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I know one professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses topocentric houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the Skyscript site by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal astrology and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default houses system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the first house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the ascending sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last degree of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one study that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs and it seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've studied the house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as Solar Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian astrologer B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the clearest results in this kind of study. The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological alphabet " philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and so on) has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the Moon: so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world and so on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about father, real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe systems etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, you'll find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about father than mother. Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Hi Therese, If you and others would be willing to look at my data from the sidereal perspective, that would be of great insight to me. For one thing, even from the western astrology perspective, I can't seem to see my chart clearly, even though my clients tell me that I do a great job interpreting theirs. To me, my chart looks like a fog, or a web, and I can't see the tree from the forest. I don't know what it is, but I find it very difficult to draw any strong conclusion about my own chart, so in a sense, I haven't been able to use astrology to help my own self much. Too much subjectivity I think. The other thing is I have never had my chart read from the jyotish perspective before, so I would be very interested in seeing how I look like from a jyotish viewpoint. I know Bettina said I should still be the same person. However, perhaps there are aspects of me that might have been hidden from the western astrology lens?? So here it is... Here's who I am (such a Aries/Ram thing to say isn't it?): Felicia Hong Mar 21, 1964 Saigon, Vietnam 8:58PM Thank you for any insight you would give me, especially anything that could help me understand how I can best go about finding and maintaining my inner peace...:-) Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: At 01:08 PM 3/16/08 -0700, Felicia wrote: >Sari, Therese, > > I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look at myself from a brand new perspective. No you don't have to look at yourself from a different perspective, only with a different name. Any sign trait, if valid, doesn't change its place on the ecliptic. Only the NAME changes. Please see my web site and read the articles on the signs, esp. Parts 1,2 and 3. http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm > I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. > What does this mean? It means that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house! It means that the zenith point (90 degrees from the ascendant--the nonagesimal) is now the 10th house cusp, and the rulerships follow. If you want to post your data, probably some of us will take a look at it. Or you can send it to me privately. I know Bettina would like to see your data. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 >But for convenience sake, I use a combination of the whole sign house system Hi Chris, Wow, this sounds complicated. How do you that? Does that mean you use a different house system for natal charts than ones for predictive purposes such as solar return or progression charts? I often wonder if that kind of mixing of the house systems would work. Felicia Christopher Kevill <christopher.kevill wrote: Hi Felicia, Welcome to the wacky world of sidereal astrology. I just wanted to mention that from the Jyotish side of things, the sign the Sun is in isn't actually as important for determining personality as in Western astrology. The Moon and Ascendant are much more important in that respect. The MC is still important in as a sensitive point that is associated with the 10th house, but if you use the whole sign house system, then it becomes a sort of second order 10th house cusp. Like many astrologers, I've played around with several different house systems and find there is something to all of them. But for convenience sake, I use a combination of the whole sign house system with equal house cusps and then use the unequal cusps (including the MC) as calculated by Placidus and Porphyry as extra points to look at. But that only happens when I have the time. :-) Best, Chris Felicia Hong wrote: > > Sari, Therese, > > I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an > Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look > at myself from a brand new perspective. > > With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, > impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I > have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much > more complex. > > This will be interesting... > > I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. > What does this mean? > > Sari M <gerdapp <gerdapp%40welho.com>> wrote: > Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, > > you wrote: > > > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading > your > > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other > house > > systems and what were your experiences with them? > > Sari: > > Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried > almost > all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in 1983) and > because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides > a lot. > Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use Placidus, > though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I know one > professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses > topocentric > houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses > meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). > > I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling > " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the > Skyscript site > by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in > traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal astrology > and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default > houses > system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the first > house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the ascending > sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last > degree > of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. > > I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one study > that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given > house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common > features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could > think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between > different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant > systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs > and it > seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've > studied the > house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as Solar > Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start > from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the > cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian astrologer > B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the > clearest results in this kind of study. > > The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not > always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological > alphabet " > philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and > so on) > has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for > example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the > Moon: > so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world > and so > on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional > (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about > father, > real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe > systems > etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, > you'll > find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and > business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine > themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about > father than mother. > > Best, Sari > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 >Also, there are a variety of opinions about sidereal sign attributes. Most Jyotish astrologers (myself included) believe that a Sun in sidereal Pisces confers standard Piscean traits (intuitive, sensitive, emotional) to the personality along with the house its placed in and to house of Leo. Hi Chris, When you say the house of Leo, do you mean the natural house of Leo, the 5th? or the house that has Leo on its cusp? or both? Libra-Gemini type... Hmmm... I have always thought of my self as the Scorpio-Cancer type which from my evolutionary astrology study I infer to mean deep, probing, committed, obsessive, intuitive but moody and sensitive like a baby crab. From the evolutionary astrology perspective, a Libra-Gemini type would make me a harmony loving, relationship focused, but perhaps unassertive, indecisive " intellectual gypsy " (label given by ex-husband :-)). Is that close to the jyotish interpretation? Felicia Christopher Kevill <christopher.kevill wrote: Hi Felicia, No, I use pretty much the same system for all charts I look at. How many I consult really depends more on how much time I have. It's actually less complicated than you might think. All these house cusps are just sensitive points that help us understand more about the planets they are connected to. So if a planet is near the equal 8th cusp (that's a bad one), then that is going to bring out more of the negative side of the planet and the house, along with the houses the planet rules. If a planet is, say far off the equal 8th cusp but close to the Placidus 8th cusp, then I tend to look at that as also somewhat problematic although less so than the equal cusp. So that's the hierarchy I work with. In terms of displaying the actual charts, I use Placidus or Porphyry, since I can read the equal cusps just by looking at it. I use the same approach for house placement. In your chart, your Jupiter is in the whole sign 7th so that may say something about your spouse. However, Jupiter is so far away from the cusp (20 degrees), it may take on some 6th house qualities. So when making assessments of Jupiter's qualities I would be more nuanced and sort of straddle both houses if possible. Also, there are a variety of opinions about sidereal sign attributes. Most Jyotish astrologers (myself included) believe that a Sun in sidereal Pisces confers standard Piscean traits (intuitive, sensitive, emotional) to the personality along with the house its placed in and to house of Leo. As I said, Moon and Ascendant are more important for getting a basic read on people so you're more likely a Libra-Gemini type. Chris Felicia Hong wrote: > > >But for convenience sake, I use a > combination of the whole sign house system > > Hi Chris, > Wow, this sounds complicated. How do you that? > Does that mean you use a different house system for natal charts than > ones for predictive purposes such as solar return or progression > charts? I often wonder if that kind of mixing of the house systems > would work. > > Felicia > > Christopher Kevill <christopher.kevill > <christopher.kevill%40utoronto.ca>> wrote: > Hi Felicia, > > Welcome to the wacky world of sidereal astrology. > > I just wanted to mention that from the Jyotish side of things, the sign > the Sun is in isn't actually as important for determining personality as > in Western astrology. The Moon and Ascendant are much more important in > that respect. > > The MC is still important in as a sensitive point that is associated > with the 10th house, but if you use the whole sign house system, then it > becomes a sort of second order 10th house cusp. Like many astrologers, > I've played around with several different house systems and find there > is something to all of them. But for convenience sake, I use a > combination of the whole sign house system with equal house cusps and > then use the unequal cusps (including the MC) as calculated by Placidus > and Porphyry as extra points to look at. But that only happens when I > have the time. :-) > > Best, > Chris > > Felicia Hong wrote: > > > > Sari, Therese, > > > > I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an > > Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look > > at myself from a brand new perspective. > > > > With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, > > impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I > > have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much > > more complex. > > > > This will be interesting... > > > > I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. > > What does this mean? > > > > Sari M <gerdapp <gerdapp%40welho.com> > <gerdapp%40welho.com>> wrote: > > Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, > > > > you wrote: > > > > > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > > > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading > > your > > > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other > > house > > > systems and what were your experiences with them? > > > > Sari: > > > > Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried > > almost > > all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in > 1983) and > > because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides > > a lot. > > Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use > Placidus, > > though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I > know one > > professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses > > topocentric > > houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses > > meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). > > > > I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling > > " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the > > Skyscript site > > by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in > > traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal > astrology > > and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default > > houses > > system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the > first > > house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the > ascending > > sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last > > degree > > of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. > > > > I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one > study > > that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given > > house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common > > features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could > > think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between > > different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant > > systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs > > and it > > seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've > > studied the > > house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as > Solar > > Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start > > from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the > > cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian > astrologer > > B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the > > clearest results in this kind of study. > > > > The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not > > always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological > > alphabet " > > philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and > > so on) > > has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for > > example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the > > Moon: > > so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world > > and so > > on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional > > (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about > > father, > > real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe > > systems > > etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, > > you'll > > find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and > > business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine > > themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about > > father than mother. > > > > Best, Sari > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Hi Felicia, No, I use pretty much the same system for all charts I look at. How many I consult really depends more on how much time I have. It's actually less complicated than you might think. All these house cusps are just sensitive points that help us understand more about the planets they are connected to. So if a planet is near the equal 8th cusp (that's a bad one), then that is going to bring out more of the negative side of the planet and the house, along with the houses the planet rules. If a planet is, say far off the equal 8th cusp but close to the Placidus 8th cusp, then I tend to look at that as also somewhat problematic although less so than the equal cusp. So that's the hierarchy I work with. In terms of displaying the actual charts, I use Placidus or Porphyry, since I can read the equal cusps just by looking at it. I use the same approach for house placement. In your chart, your Jupiter is in the whole sign 7th so that may say something about your spouse. However, Jupiter is so far away from the cusp (20 degrees), it may take on some 6th house qualities. So when making assessments of Jupiter's qualities I would be more nuanced and sort of straddle both houses if possible. Also, there are a variety of opinions about sidereal sign attributes. Most Jyotish astrologers (myself included) believe that a Sun in sidereal Pisces confers standard Piscean traits (intuitive, sensitive, emotional) to the personality along with the house its placed in and to house of Leo. As I said, Moon and Ascendant are more important for getting a basic read on people so you're more likely a Libra-Gemini type. Chris Felicia Hong wrote: > > >But for convenience sake, I use a > combination of the whole sign house system > > Hi Chris, > Wow, this sounds complicated. How do you that? > Does that mean you use a different house system for natal charts than > ones for predictive purposes such as solar return or progression > charts? I often wonder if that kind of mixing of the house systems > would work. > > Felicia > > Christopher Kevill <christopher.kevill > <christopher.kevill%40utoronto.ca>> wrote: > Hi Felicia, > > Welcome to the wacky world of sidereal astrology. > > I just wanted to mention that from the Jyotish side of things, the sign > the Sun is in isn't actually as important for determining personality as > in Western astrology. The Moon and Ascendant are much more important in > that respect. > > The MC is still important in as a sensitive point that is associated > with the 10th house, but if you use the whole sign house system, then it > becomes a sort of second order 10th house cusp. Like many astrologers, > I've played around with several different house systems and find there > is something to all of them. But for convenience sake, I use a > combination of the whole sign house system with equal house cusps and > then use the unequal cusps (including the MC) as calculated by Placidus > and Porphyry as extra points to look at. But that only happens when I > have the time. :-) > > Best, > Chris > > Felicia Hong wrote: > > > > Sari, Therese, > > > > I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an > > Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look > > at myself from a brand new perspective. > > > > With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, > > impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I > > have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much > > more complex. > > > > This will be interesting... > > > > I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. > > What does this mean? > > > > Sari M <gerdapp <gerdapp%40welho.com> > <gerdapp%40welho.com>> wrote: > > Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, > > > > you wrote: > > > > > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal equal > > > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading > > your > > > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other > > house > > > systems and what were your experiences with them? > > > > Sari: > > > > Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried > > almost > > all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in > 1983) and > > because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides > > a lot. > > Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use > Placidus, > > though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I > know one > > professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses > > topocentric > > houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses > > meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know IMO). > > > > I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that (googling > > " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the > > Skyscript site > > by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in > > traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal > astrology > > and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default > > houses > > system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the > first > > house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the > ascending > > sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last > > degree > > of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. > > > > I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one > study > > that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a given > > house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common > > features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one could > > think that the house system that gives the clearest differences between > > different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared quadrant > > systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs > > and it > > seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've > > studied the > > house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as > Solar > > Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't start > > from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so that the > > cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian > astrologer > > B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the > > clearest results in this kind of study. > > > > The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that it's not > > always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological > > alphabet " > > philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and > > so on) > > has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for > > example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the > > Moon: > > so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world > > and so > > on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional > > (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about > > father, > > real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe > > systems > > etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, > > you'll > > find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, law and > > business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine > > themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about > > father than mother. > > > > Best, Sari > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I mean Leo which in your chart is the 11th house. So perhaps Pisces says something about your friends or how you earn money. Obviously not too much because it's just one factor out of many, but that's how I would approach it. I would tend to side with your ex -- if I may. :-). The indecisive Gemini side is confirmed by the conjunction of Rahu with your Moon. You can be prone to think in unusual ways, or to be highly sensitive to others, and sometimes maybe succumbing to false perceptions because of an overactive imagination. Note that some of that description fits the Scorp-Cancer profile. That's because the Rahu is with your Moon, irrespective of the sign its in. Rahu has a certain Scorpionic/Pluto flavour to it. Having Neptune on the Ascendant more or less reinforces this more harmony-seeking , esoteric side to you. These factors tend to predominate over any classic Libran traits imo. Felicia Hong wrote: > > >Also, there are a variety of opinions about sidereal sign attributes. > Most Jyotish astrologers (myself included) believe that a Sun in > sidereal Pisces confers standard Piscean traits (intuitive, sensitive, > emotional) to the personality along with the house its placed in and to > house of Leo. > > Hi Chris, > > When you say the house of Leo, do you mean the natural house of Leo, > the 5th? or the house that has Leo on its cusp? or both? > > Libra-Gemini type... > Hmmm... I have always thought of my self as the Scorpio-Cancer type > which from my evolutionary astrology study I infer to mean deep, > probing, committed, obsessive, intuitive but moody and sensitive like > a baby crab. > From the evolutionary astrology perspective, a Libra-Gemini type would > make me a harmony loving, relationship focused, but perhaps > unassertive, indecisive " intellectual gypsy " (label given by > ex-husband :-)). > > Is that close to the jyotish interpretation? > > Felicia > > Christopher Kevill <christopher.kevill > <christopher.kevill%40utoronto.ca>> wrote: > Hi Felicia, > > No, I use pretty much the same system for all charts I look at. How > many I consult really depends more on how much time I have. > > It's actually less complicated than you might think. All these house > cusps are just sensitive points that help us understand more about the > planets they are connected to. So if a planet is near the equal 8th > cusp (that's a bad one), then that is going to bring out more of the > negative side of the planet and the house, along with the houses the > planet rules. If a planet is, say far off the equal 8th cusp but close > to the Placidus 8th cusp, then I tend to look at that as also somewhat > problematic although less so than the equal cusp. So that's the > hierarchy I work with. In terms of displaying the actual charts, I use > Placidus or Porphyry, since I can read the equal cusps just by looking > at it. > > I use the same approach for house placement. In your chart, your > Jupiter is in the whole sign 7th so that may say something about your > spouse. However, Jupiter is so far away from the cusp (20 degrees), it > may take on some 6th house qualities. So when making assessments of > Jupiter's qualities I would be more nuanced and sort of straddle both > houses if possible. > > Also, there are a variety of opinions about sidereal sign attributes. > Most Jyotish astrologers (myself included) believe that a Sun in > sidereal Pisces confers standard Piscean traits (intuitive, sensitive, > emotional) to the personality along with the house its placed in and to > house of Leo. As I said, Moon and Ascendant are more important for > getting a basic read on people so you're more likely a Libra-Gemini type. > > Chris > > Felicia Hong wrote: > > > > >But for convenience sake, I use a > > combination of the whole sign house system > > > > Hi Chris, > > Wow, this sounds complicated. How do you that? > > Does that mean you use a different house system for natal charts than > > ones for predictive purposes such as solar return or progression > > charts? I often wonder if that kind of mixing of the house systems > > would work. > > > > Felicia > > > > Christopher Kevill <christopher.kevill > <christopher.kevill%40utoronto.ca> > > <christopher.kevill%40utoronto.ca>> wrote: > > Hi Felicia, > > > > Welcome to the wacky world of sidereal astrology. > > > > I just wanted to mention that from the Jyotish side of things, the sign > > the Sun is in isn't actually as important for determining personality as > > in Western astrology. The Moon and Ascendant are much more important in > > that respect. > > > > The MC is still important in as a sensitive point that is associated > > with the 10th house, but if you use the whole sign house system, then it > > becomes a sort of second order 10th house cusp. Like many astrologers, > > I've played around with several different house systems and find there > > is something to all of them. But for convenience sake, I use a > > combination of the whole sign house system with equal house cusps and > > then use the unequal cusps (including the MC) as calculated by Placidus > > and Porphyry as extra points to look at. But that only happens when I > > have the time. :-) > > > > Best, > > Chris > > > > Felicia Hong wrote: > > > > > > Sari, Therese, > > > > > > I tried casting my chart in sidereal equal houses and instead of an > > > Aries Sun, I now have to view myself as a Pisces. I now have to look > > > at myself from a brand new perspective. > > > > > > With the Aries Sun, I thought I was supposed to be self-centered, > > > impulsive, simplistic and " courageous " , but now with the Pisces Sun, I > > > have to be more compassionate, idealistic, perhaps spiritual, and much > > > more complex. > > > > > > This will be interesting... > > > > > > I also notice that the MC is no longer the cusp of the 10th house. > > > What does this mean? > > > > > > Sari M <gerdapp <gerdapp%40welho.com> > <gerdapp%40welho.com> > > <gerdapp%40welho.com>> wrote: > > > Hi Felicia and welcome to the group, > > > > > > you wrote: > > > > > > > While on this subject, Mr. Houck insisted that only the sidereal > equal > > > > house system works accurately for predictive purposes. From reading > > > your > > > > comments so far, it seems that you would agree. Have you tried other > > > house > > > > systems and what were your experiences with them? > > > > > > Sari: > > > > > > Houses are something that have interested me a lot lately. I've tried > > > almost > > > all the systems over the years (I started to study astrology in > > 1983) and > > > because I live in Finland on high latitudes, the house system decides > > > a lot. > > > Most professional astrologers here (I'm not a professional) use > > Placidus, > > > though it becomes the more impractical the more north you are. I > > know one > > > professional who uses tropical whole sign houses, one who uses > > > topocentric > > > houses, and one of the most knowledgeable non-professionals here uses > > > meridian houses (that's probably the strangest house system I know > IMO). > > > > > > I got interested in whole sign houses in early 2005, and that > (googling > > > " whole sign houses " ) in fact was the thing that led me to the > > > Skyscript site > > > by Deborah Houlding, and that in turn led me to get interested in > > > traditional Western astrology. Later that year I found sidereal > > astrology > > > and started to study jyotish, where whole sign houses are the default > > > houses > > > system. Note that this is not the same than equal houses, where the > > first > > > house begins from the ascendant, but with whole sign houses the > > ascending > > > sign in it's entirety is the 1st house (even when you have the last > > > degree > > > of it rising), the following sign is the 2nd house and so on. > > > > > > I have AstroDatabank database and I love to do studies with it; one > > study > > > that I've made is to study charts that have a lot of planets in a > given > > > house - do the biographies/lives of those chart owners have any common > > > features? They do, though it's always not very striking. Now, one > could > > > think that the house system that gives the clearest differences > between > > > different houses, would be the one working best. I've compared > quadrant > > > systems (defined by both the Asc/DC and MC/IC axis) with whole signs > > > and it > > > seems that whole signs show the results better. But lately I've > > > studied the > > > house system Therese uses, Vehlow houses or " Asc in 1st " houses, as > > Solar > > > Fire calls them, where you use equal houses, but the house doesn't > start > > > from the cusp but spreads 15 degrees to the both sides of it so > that the > > > cusp is in the middle. This is the house system eminent Indian > > astrologer > > > B.V Raman preferred. So far it seems to be that Vehlow houses give the > > > clearest results in this kind of study. > > > > > > The houses do count and they have a meaning, but it seems that > it's not > > > always what modern tropical astrology tells us. The " astrological > > > alphabet " > > > philosophy (Aries = Mars = 1st house; Taurus = Venus = 2nd house and > > > so on) > > > has done a lot of damage to the house meanings by telling us that for > > > example the 4th house would be the same than (tropical) Cancer or the > > > Moon: > > > so it should be about soft things like mother, emotions, inner world > > > and so > > > on. But those are not the things that get mentioned in the traditional > > > (Western) texts about the 4th house; in them, the 4th house is about > > > father, > > > real estate, land, structures, undergound things (foundations, pipe > > > systems > > > etc.) When you study charts with a lot of emphasis on the 4th house, > > > you'll > > > find people whose lives have to do with organisations, politics, > law and > > > business - structures, security, foundations, quite hard and masculine > > > themes. In that sense one might think that the 4th house is more about > > > father than mother. > > > > > > Best, Sari > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 At 07:02 PM 3/16/08 -0700, Felicia wrote: > > Libra-Gemini type... > Hmmm... I have always thought of my self as the Scorpio-Cancer type which from my evolutionary astrology study I infer to mean deep, probing, committed, obsessive, intuitive but moody and sensitive like a baby crab. > From the evolutionary astrology perspective, a Libra-Gemini type would make me a harmony loving, relationship focused, but perhaps unassertive, indecisive " intellectual gypsy " (label given by ex-husband :-)). > > Is that close to the jyotish interpretation? Hi Felicia, I have't calculated your chart yet since I've just gone on-line after a break, and am doing a quick read of new posts. But from India there is really **no** interpretation of signs. Traditionally signs have been used in Jyotish (the old Hindu astrology) to determine the strength of planets. Mars in Cancer would be likely to act unlike itself whereas Mars in Aries or Capricorn would be very strong, not necessarily in a good way since Mars is a malefic. Since Jyotish has come to the west, it's now a wide open field for opinions on the traits of signs. I take the tropical observations as genuine (observations, **not** theory), so if tropical astrologers observe that Gemini is a bit flighty and talkative, these traits go back to sidereal Taurus. Why??? Because Taurus is ruled by the social, relating Venus and is the exalation of the changeable (often flighty) Moon. Taurus also belongs to the trigon ruled by Mercury (Tau-Vir-Cap), Mercury being at home and exalted in Virgo. If tropical Taurus is fixed and stubborn as the books say, sidereally this is because sidereal Aries is ruled by Mars, and Mars energy is internalized into will power and determination in that sign. And so on throught the zodiac. Many western Jyotish astrologers (as Chris says) simply transfer tropical traits to siderereal signs of the same name. This makes no sense to me (or apparently to Bettina either) because it creates a conflict in the placements of planets in any one area of the ecliptic. In my opinion, and person can't be two sets of conflicting traits unless they're psychotic. So this is an on-going discussion/argument/belief system in these modern times of Jyotish into the west. The western siderealists of the Fagan-Allen school believe the tropical zodiac is a myth, so any oberved traits **must** be sidereal. In interesting world, isn't it??!! Got to run for now, hope there aren't too many typos in this post. Therese 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.