Notes/

[Guest guest]

Hi all. The election thread is interesting (I believe Bush will win)

but in response to some questions which were posted to me elsewhere I

have found the following links which may be of interest to some here.

Notably because they make important distinctions between the systems:

 

http://www.astro-horoscopes.com/HTML/AskKevin/980116.html

 

Kevin Burk is a tropical astrologer but he has this to say:

 

'Tropical astrology believes that the qualities associated with the

signs are linked to the seasons, rather than to the fixed stars, and

therefore the precession of the equinoxes and the growing difference

between the tropical signs and the relative positions of their

namesake constellations is of no consequence. Sidereal astrologers

(both western and eastern) believe that the qualities of the signs are

not related to the seasons, but rather to the specific portions of the

ecliptic as measured against the fixed stars.'

 

http://users.skynet.be/ashtanga.yoga/indian_astrology_en.htm

 

Jean Dethier is a sidereal astrologer and he has this to say:

 

'The fact that the Sun, or at least its expression, is always manifest

led the west to devise an astrological system of a seasonal nature.

The mobile zodiac, divided into twelve signs from the spring equinox,

does in fact represent the seasons. Or rather *our* seasons, those in

our regions at the present time...But for those regions of the globe

around the tropics, it is a very different story. There the word

'season' has a completely different meaning. In India, for example

(and this may seem paradoxical), the Sun is not nearly as important as

in the west. It is always strong, always present: so much so that in

the end it is scarcely noticed. It is understood, of course, that

without the Sun nothing would exist, but that is all it does: it gives

life - rather like a man who scatters his seed but does not care about

his progeny... For the Indians, the Sun is a very remote master, a

father to whom they owe their life and nothing more. That is why they

give the Sun a secondary role in their astrological system...The Moon

on the other hand is far more captivating....'

 

I recommend both articles linked to above as each is remarkably clear

in its own fashion. The distinguishing remark for me -- and perhaps

for others who might have been formed in the tropical tradition -- is

that the qualities of the signs are linked to the ecliptic -- as

measured against the constellations rather than to the path of the Sun

around the ecliptic. The relativity of the seasons is also an

important factor otherwise one ends up with an astrological system

based solely on the supremacy of the northern hemisphere.

 

Andrew