Sidereal Signs

[Guest guest]

A lurker on this list sent the following post to me. I thought it would be

helpful to answer it on the list.

 

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

>>>I saw your post about Sidereal signs where you seem to say that the

tropical interpretations of a sign can be applied to the preceding

sign--making Sagittarius, for instance, take on the traits most

tropical astrologers give to Capricorn. You said you have some data

on this, which I'd be interested to see. Have any authors explored

the question of whether a sidereal sign can be interpreted with the

tropical meanings of the succeeding sing?

(End e-mail)<<<

 

I thought the idea of the Tropical observations of a sign (if they are

observations and correct and not just theory) being applied to the

preceding sidereal sign was my original idea, but I guess not because....

 

Yesterday I remembered a forgotten book in my bookcase: THE NEW INSTANT

ASTROLOGER by James A. Eshelman and Tom Stanton. The book was published in

1976 and was meant to fill in the void in sidereal natal astrology. On page

18 the authors discuss this concept:

 

" Sidereal Scorpios, for the most part, have their Suns in Tropical

Sagittarius...People born at this time are known to be dynamic,

competitive, claustrophobic, energetic and enduring, their tact often being

less than adequate to the occasion. The important question becomes: are

these martial or jovial characteristics? The answer to that, by inference,

tells whether we should consider them Scorpioan or Sagittarian. We think

the arguments for Scorpio and Mars are better founded... "

 

Quite possibly these authors are the source of my later conviction that the

Tropical zodiac is a myth and that the traits Tropical astrologers OBSERVE

really belong to the underlying sidereal sign, which is one sign back from

the Tropical.

 

I wonder what happened to Jim Eshalman? He was a big sidereal mover and

shaker in the 70s and I expected him to become the banner carrier for

sidereal astrology. I know that recently he's pubished a few articles, but

otherwise he's disappeared from public view.

 

This post is long enough, so in another post I'll say something about the

rather extensive sign delineations in the Eshelman-Stanton book.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

At 12:53 AM 4/29/04 -0700, Morgana wrote:

>

>Hello Mu,...

>I will try to get hold of that book because I really need some real help

>getting a handle on this. I am getting the idea, from you Therese that

>reading interpretations of the Sun sign for tropical Cancer for instance is

>nothing compared to what it should be Vedic verstion... It doesn't seem

right

>that all the qualities of Leo tropical would disappear and become Cancerian;

>there must be some kind of a blend. Anyway just my opinion and I need to

read,

>and read, and read some more, although I am waiting for you Therese, since

you

>are writing sun signs, Vedic version.

 

Hi Morgana,

 

Not just sun signs. I'm trying to give a sense of the energy of a sign

which would affect different planets in different ways. I've finished

another article, but the tech guys messed up our server, and nothing will

upload, and usually e-mails won't go out either. I couldn't even get to

e-mails for a day, so then there were about 70 messages to download. The

counter on the Lost Zodiac web site says, " Illegal datafile path. " Those

tech guys really did us in this time.

 

I plan to get the sign articles finished really fast now. That weird

headache caused a week's delay.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Felicia wrote:

 

> 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?

 

Sari:

 

This was asked from Therese, but at the moment I personally see father from

the 4th house and mother from the 10th, this is the traditional (medieval)

Western practice.

 

Felicia wrote:

 

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.

 

Sari:

 

This is a complex issue :oD. There is roughly speaking two schools in

sidereal astrology - one school thinks that tropicalists are simply wrong,

and the attributes assigned to the tropical signs simply belong to their

sidereal equivalents. That would make you a compassionate, idealistic,

complex and spiritual Pisces.

 

But the other school that Therese, Bettina and I (for the most part, but

maybe not 100%) represents thinks that there's only one zodiac, and the

traits that belong to a certain part of that zodiac don't change, no matter

how we call them. That means that sidereal Pisces is for the most part the

same than tropical Aries.

 

To be more exact, according to my own studies and observations about Pisces

the part that belongs to Revati nakshatra (nakshatras are 27 " Moon signs "

used in Indian astrology) 16.40-30 sidereal Pisces is the archetypical

" Aries " part in the tropical sense: rash, bold, daring, foolhardy, even

violent etc. (you will not find this in any jyotish books but it works like

that on actual charts). But the part that belongs to Uttara Bhadrapada

nakshatra, 3.20-16.40 Pisces where your Sun is, is a bit different: more

philosophical, ponderingt, quiet, deep etc. But the common feature for all

of sidereal Pisces is the courage that its ruler Jupiter gives (jyotish uses

traditional rulers) and certain theatricality that's common for all watery

signs.

 

If you're wondering how water can be theatrical, take a look at people who

have the watery Moon on their ascendants

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Kuvat/the_moon.htm and compare them to people

who have the fiery Sun on their ascendants

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Kuvat/the_sun.htm . Lunar people look clearly

more extraverted and social, Solar people look more determined and

action-oriented - in fact they look quite " Virgoan " in the tropical sense,

don't they?

 

This tropical Aries Sun is quite a close subject for me personally, because

my Sun in tropically in 24 Pisces so that is in Pisces also sidereally. I've

known my Sun signs since I was a child, and then I really tried to identify

with this dreamy, illusionary image that should have been me. I consciously

tried to " fall into dreams " ! But no, I didn't really get it. I was a little

girl that was more interested in climbing on top of the block of flats I was

living in (and getting the janitor mad!), hiding things in the wood and

making a chart of the " cache " , and things like that. I was quite a tomboy.

 

I've never understood the fuss that people make about their Sun signs -

until some time ago when I read what Linda Goodman writes about tropical

Aries. Heck - that was me! Oh my lord! I'm still in just the same kind of

troubles in work now when I'm an adult, arguing with my bosses, then

regretting, because I'm quite sensitive after all, hurting unintentionally

others without meaning anything bad, rushing into things... a tropicalist

says it's Mars, but I say no, it's not Mars (because Mars at its worst can

be intentionally cruel), it's Jupiter, this sanguine, easily excited, hot

and moist balloon that's the traditional ruler of Pisces.

 

So, Linda Goodman's Sun signs apply on the sidereal zodiac, you just have to

change the names of the signs. The crucial point is the last six degrees of

a tropical sign that belong sidereally in the same sign - do they seem to

display more the qualitities of the next tropical sign? I would say so.

You've mentioned that you've studied evolutionary astrology - do you mean

the school of Jeff Green and Steven Forrest? I have both the Pluto books of

Jeff Green, and the truth is that I quite like of the Venus in signs

descriptions in the second Pluto book. Again, you just have to change the

names of the signs to apply them on a sidereal zodiac. Those descriptions

are apparently firmly based on practical observation, that's why they work.

 

Why bother about the sidereal zodiac then at all? Because its predictive

power that's based on correct planetary rulers of the signs. The house

rulers are used extensively in prediction, and that's the main reason they

praise the predictive power of jyotish - and that's the reason why house

rulers are not much used in today's tropical astrology: they have simply

lost their power.

 

Why is tropical Pisces seen as a dreamy and impractical sign then? At worst

tropical Pisces can be quite a desperate loser, and that's not Jupiter at

all! Tropicalists have had to give Neptune to Pisces, because Jupiter simply

doesn't fit any more, when precession had moved tropical Pisces out of its

constellation.

 

But sidereally most of tropical Pisces belongs to Aquarius that is

traditionally a warm and moist, sanguine - social, human, friendly - air

sign. But it's ruled by Saturn, the traditional slave and " loser " of the

planets, that signifies all kinds of losses and degradation, dissolving

things, tarnishing, disintegrating... mythologically Saturn/Cronos was the

only one of Gaia's children who was willing to rise against his father

Ouranos castrating him. So, I don't think that Saturn signifies structures,

I think it signifies their disintegration. That's why it traditionally rules

the area on the zodiac that tropically belongs mostly to Aquarius and

Pisces, the dissolving signs. In sidereal Aquarius (=tropical Pisces) the

sanguine friendliness of the air element and the melancholic sadness of

Saturn are combined.

 

It's good for a siderealist to study jyotish, but it's also extremely

interesting to study traditional (pre 1700-) Western astrology applying it

to sidereal charts. I personally think that the traditional Western

concepts - dignities, rulerships, elements, humours etc. - give best results

on a sidereal zodiac.

 

Best, Sari

[Guest guest]

>You've mentioned that you've studied evolutionary astrology - do you mean

the school of Jeff Green and Steven Forrest?

 

Hi Sari,

 

Yes, I studied with Jodie Forrest, Steven's wife, but have also studied Steven

and Jeff Green's works through their books and tapes.

 

I find evolutionary astrology very good for working with people who is looking

to find their career path/ mission in life and how their strenghts and

weaknesses and preferences come into play.

 

Have you used evolutionary astrology in your work?

 

Felicia

 

Sari M <gerdapp wrote:

Felicia wrote:

 

> 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?

 

Sari:

 

This was asked from Therese, but at the moment I personally see father from

the 4th house and mother from the 10th, this is the traditional (medieval)

Western practice.

 

Felicia wrote:

 

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.

 

Sari:

 

This is a complex issue :oD. There is roughly speaking two schools in

sidereal astrology - one school thinks that tropicalists are simply wrong,

and the attributes assigned to the tropical signs simply belong to their

sidereal equivalents. That would make you a compassionate, idealistic,

complex and spiritual Pisces.

 

But the other school that Therese, Bettina and I (for the most part, but

maybe not 100%) represents thinks that there's only one zodiac, and the

traits that belong to a certain part of that zodiac don't change, no matter

how we call them. That means that sidereal Pisces is for the most part the

same than tropical Aries.

 

To be more exact, according to my own studies and observations about Pisces

the part that belongs to Revati nakshatra (nakshatras are 27 " Moon signs "

used in Indian astrology) 16.40-30 sidereal Pisces is the archetypical

" Aries " part in the tropical sense: rash, bold, daring, foolhardy, even

violent etc. (you will not find this in any jyotish books but it works like

that on actual charts). But the part that belongs to Uttara Bhadrapada

nakshatra, 3.20-16.40 Pisces where your Sun is, is a bit different: more

philosophical, ponderingt, quiet, deep etc. But the common feature for all

of sidereal Pisces is the courage that its ruler Jupiter gives (jyotish uses

traditional rulers) and certain theatricality that's common for all watery

signs.

 

If you're wondering how water can be theatrical, take a look at people who

have the watery Moon on their ascendants

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Kuvat/the_moon.htm and compare them to people

who have the fiery Sun on their ascendants

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Kuvat/the_sun.htm . Lunar people look clearly

more extraverted and social, Solar people look more determined and

action-oriented - in fact they look quite " Virgoan " in the tropical sense,

don't they?

 

This tropical Aries Sun is quite a close subject for me personally, because

my Sun in tropically in 24 Pisces so that is in Pisces also sidereally. I've

known my Sun signs since I was a child, and then I really tried to identify

with this dreamy, illusionary image that should have been me. I consciously

tried to " fall into dreams " ! But no, I didn't really get it. I was a little

girl that was more interested in climbing on top of the block of flats I was

living in (and getting the janitor mad!), hiding things in the wood and

making a chart of the " cache " , and things like that. I was quite a tomboy.

 

I've never understood the fuss that people make about their Sun signs -

until some time ago when I read what Linda Goodman writes about tropical

Aries. Heck - that was me! Oh my lord! I'm still in just the same kind of

troubles in work now when I'm an adult, arguing with my bosses, then

regretting, because I'm quite sensitive after all, hurting unintentionally

others without meaning anything bad, rushing into things... a tropicalist

says it's Mars, but I say no, it's not Mars (because Mars at its worst can

be intentionally cruel), it's Jupiter, this sanguine, easily excited, hot

and moist balloon that's the traditional ruler of Pisces.

 

So, Linda Goodman's Sun signs apply on the sidereal zodiac, you just have to

change the names of the signs. The crucial point is the last six degrees of

a tropical sign that belong sidereally in the same sign - do they seem to

display more the qualitities of the next tropical sign? I would say so.

You've mentioned that you've studied evolutionary astrology - do you mean

the school of Jeff Green and Steven Forrest? I have both the Pluto books of

Jeff Green, and the truth is that I quite like of the Venus in signs

descriptions in the second Pluto book. Again, you just have to change the

names of the signs to apply them on a sidereal zodiac. Those descriptions

are apparently firmly based on practical observation, that's why they work.

 

Why bother about the sidereal zodiac then at all? Because its predictive

power that's based on correct planetary rulers of the signs. The house

rulers are used extensively in prediction, and that's the main reason they

praise the predictive power of jyotish - and that's the reason why house

rulers are not much used in today's tropical astrology: they have simply

lost their power.

 

Why is tropical Pisces seen as a dreamy and impractical sign then? At worst

tropical Pisces can be quite a desperate loser, and that's not Jupiter at

all! Tropicalists have had to give Neptune to Pisces, because Jupiter simply

doesn't fit any more, when precession had moved tropical Pisces out of its

constellation.

 

But sidereally most of tropical Pisces belongs to Aquarius that is

traditionally a warm and moist, sanguine - social, human, friendly - air

sign. But it's ruled by Saturn, the traditional slave and " loser " of the

planets, that signifies all kinds of losses and degradation, dissolving

things, tarnishing, disintegrating... mythologically Saturn/Cronos was the

only one of Gaia's children who was willing to rise against his father

Ouranos castrating him. So, I don't think that Saturn signifies structures,

I think it signifies their disintegration. That's why it traditionally rules

the area on the zodiac that tropically belongs mostly to Aquarius and

Pisces, the dissolving signs. In sidereal Aquarius (=tropical Pisces) the

sanguine friendliness of the air element and the melancholic sadness of

Saturn are combined.

 

It's good for a siderealist to study jyotish, but it's also extremely

interesting to study traditional (pre 1700-) Western astrology applying it

to sidereal charts. I personally think that the traditional Western

concepts - dignities, rulerships, elements, humours etc. - give best results

on a sidereal zodiac.

 

Best, Sari

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Aries. Heck - that was me! Oh my lord! I'm still in just the same kind of

troubles in work now when I'm an adult, arguing with my bosses, then

regretting, because I'm quite sensitive after all, hurting unintentionally

others without meaning anything bad, rushing into things... a tropicalist

says it's Mars, but I say no, it's not Mars (because Mars at its worst can

be intentionally cruel), it's Jupiter, this sanguine, easily excited, hot

and moist balloon that's the traditional ruler of Pisces.

 

Sari, it made me smile to read about your own experience with the Aries

energy.

I often get myself in those kinds of troubles, too.

 

The question is... are we destined to remain this way or can we really help

ourselves to evolve?

 

When I really apply myself and keeping my internal antennas open for possible

mishaps, I notice that I can avoid getting into too much trouble. But then

again, maybe it has something to do with the transits at the time and where I

was supposed to be in my chart, so it wasn't my own doing at all.

 

What do you think? Can you consciously change yourself to avoid the Aries

pitfalls?

 

Felicia

 

Sari M <gerdapp wrote:

Felicia wrote:

 

> 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?

 

Sari:

 

This was asked from Therese, but at the moment I personally see father from

the 4th house and mother from the 10th, this is the traditional (medieval)

Western practice.

 

Felicia wrote:

 

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.

 

Sari:

 

This is a complex issue :oD. There is roughly speaking two schools in

sidereal astrology - one school thinks that tropicalists are simply wrong,

and the attributes assigned to the tropical signs simply belong to their

sidereal equivalents. That would make you a compassionate, idealistic,

complex and spiritual Pisces.

 

But the other school that Therese, Bettina and I (for the most part, but

maybe not 100%) represents thinks that there's only one zodiac, and the

traits that belong to a certain part of that zodiac don't change, no matter

how we call them. That means that sidereal Pisces is for the most part the

same than tropical Aries.

 

To be more exact, according to my own studies and observations about Pisces

the part that belongs to Revati nakshatra (nakshatras are 27 " Moon signs "

used in Indian astrology) 16.40-30 sidereal Pisces is the archetypical

" Aries " part in the tropical sense: rash, bold, daring, foolhardy, even

violent etc. (you will not find this in any jyotish books but it works like

that on actual charts). But the part that belongs to Uttara Bhadrapada

nakshatra, 3.20-16.40 Pisces where your Sun is, is a bit different: more

philosophical, ponderingt, quiet, deep etc. But the common feature for all

of sidereal Pisces is the courage that its ruler Jupiter gives (jyotish uses

traditional rulers) and certain theatricality that's common for all watery

signs.

 

If you're wondering how water can be theatrical, take a look at people who

have the watery Moon on their ascendants

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Kuvat/the_moon.htm and compare them to people

who have the fiery Sun on their ascendants

http://koti.welho.com/jmetsovu/Kuvat/the_sun.htm . Lunar people look clearly

more extraverted and social, Solar people look more determined and

action-oriented - in fact they look quite " Virgoan " in the tropical sense,

don't they?

 

This tropical Aries Sun is quite a close subject for me personally, because

my Sun in tropically in 24 Pisces so that is in Pisces also sidereally. I've

known my Sun signs since I was a child, and then I really tried to identify

with this dreamy, illusionary image that should have been me. I consciously

tried to " fall into dreams " ! But no, I didn't really get it. I was a little

girl that was more interested in climbing on top of the block of flats I was

living in (and getting the janitor mad!), hiding things in the wood and

making a chart of the " cache " , and things like that. I was quite a tomboy.

 

I've never understood the fuss that people make about their Sun signs -

until some time ago when I read what Linda Goodman writes about tropical

Aries. Heck - that was me! Oh my lord! I'm still in just the same kind of

troubles in work now when I'm an adult, arguing with my bosses, then

regretting, because I'm quite sensitive after all, hurting unintentionally

others without meaning anything bad, rushing into things... a tropicalist

says it's Mars, but I say no, it's not Mars (because Mars at its worst can

be intentionally cruel), it's Jupiter, this sanguine, easily excited, hot

and moist balloon that's the traditional ruler of Pisces.

 

So, Linda Goodman's Sun signs apply on the sidereal zodiac, you just have to

change the names of the signs. The crucial point is the last six degrees of

a tropical sign that belong sidereally in the same sign - do they seem to

display more the qualitities of the next tropical sign? I would say so.

You've mentioned that you've studied evolutionary astrology - do you mean

the school of Jeff Green and Steven Forrest? I have both the Pluto books of

Jeff Green, and the truth is that I quite like of the Venus in signs

descriptions in the second Pluto book. Again, you just have to change the

names of the signs to apply them on a sidereal zodiac. Those descriptions

are apparently firmly based on practical observation, that's why they work.

 

Why bother about the sidereal zodiac then at all? Because its predictive

power that's based on correct planetary rulers of the signs. The house

rulers are used extensively in prediction, and that's the main reason they

praise the predictive power of jyotish - and that's the reason why house

rulers are not much used in today's tropical astrology: they have simply

lost their power.

 

Why is tropical Pisces seen as a dreamy and impractical sign then? At worst

tropical Pisces can be quite a desperate loser, and that's not Jupiter at

all! Tropicalists have had to give Neptune to Pisces, because Jupiter simply

doesn't fit any more, when precession had moved tropical Pisces out of its

constellation.

 

But sidereally most of tropical Pisces belongs to Aquarius that is

traditionally a warm and moist, sanguine - social, human, friendly - air

sign. But it's ruled by Saturn, the traditional slave and " loser " of the

planets, that signifies all kinds of losses and degradation, dissolving

things, tarnishing, disintegrating... mythologically Saturn/Cronos was the

only one of Gaia's children who was willing to rise against his father

Ouranos castrating him. So, I don't think that Saturn signifies structures,

I think it signifies their disintegration. That's why it traditionally rules

the area on the zodiac that tropically belongs mostly to Aquarius and

Pisces, the dissolving signs. In sidereal Aquarius (=tropical Pisces) the

sanguine friendliness of the air element and the melancholic sadness of

Saturn are combined.

 

It's good for a siderealist to study jyotish, but it's also extremely

interesting to study traditional (pre 1700-) Western astrology applying it

to sidereal charts. I personally think that the traditional Western

concepts - dignities, rulerships, elements, humours etc. - give best results

on a sidereal zodiac.

 

Best, Sari

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi!

 

Indeed,the moon sign is better for give a good interpretation. For

exemple, we have many famous ecologists who were born with the moon in

Aslesha (Cancri):

 

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Ralph Nader, Nicolas Hulot, Ingrid Bettancourt,

Dominique Voynet, Rudolf Steiner.

 

In tropical, they are Lion... It's quite ridiculous!!!

 

I addition, Cancri is the sign of Jupiter exaltation and they find the

most fathers of nations :

Mikhail Gorbatchev (Russia), Slobodan Milosevic (Serbia),Mustafa Kemal

Atatürk (Turkey), Mahatma Gandhi (India), L'Empereur Constantin (Rome

II), Mao Tse dong (RPC), Leon Trotsky (URSS).

 

Moon in Virgo give a " president " or symbols of working class origin's:

Lech Walesa, Lula Da Silva, Alexandre Stakhanov. In tropical, we were

Balance!!!

 

Moon in Taurus give the billionaires of Venus activities (Zara, H & M).

 

Moon in Capricornus give saturnians ladies as Kate Bush, Britney

Spears, Marilyn Monroe, Samantha Fox, Lolo Ferrari...

 

Moon in Aquarius, the genies (Léonard De Vinci, Michel-Ange)

 

In conclusion, the Moon is the master of the astral chart.

 

Kind regards.

 

 

Patrice.

[Guest guest]

At 03:02 PM 3/17/08 +0200, Sari wrote:

 

>(...)But the other school that Therese, Bettina and I (for the most part,

but maybe not 100%) represents thinks that there's only one zodiac, and the

>traits that belong to a certain part of that zodiac don't change, no matter

>how we call them. That means that sidereal Pisces is for the most part the

>same as tropical Aries.

>

>To be more exact, according to my own studies and observations about Pisces

>the part that belongs to Revati nakshatra (nakshatras are 27 " Moon signs "

>used in Indian astrology)...

 

Yes, Felicia, I forget if you asked about lunar mansions on the forum or in

an e-mail, but the lunar mansions or nakshatras are " Moon Signs " as Sari

says, or the Lunar Zodiac of 27 'signs.' Each sign is distinct from the

others, and these signs are the reason I haven't finished posting

individual signs on my web site. I realized that each of the 12 zodiacal

signs has to be broken down into lunar mansions. I had begun to do this in

a book I completed way back in the early 80s (!!!), but I could not re-do

the book due to time constraints and no affordable computers--only electric

typewriters. Now I'm researching the actual way the Moon signs work in

actual charts using the AstroDatabank database.

 

>[sari:] 16.40-30 sidereal Pisces is the archetypical

> " Aries " part in the tropical sense: rash, bold, daring, foolhardy, even

>violent etc. (you will not find this in any jyotish books...)

 

This is why the lunar signs have to be studied from the ground up. I've

wondered if we should start a forum for the discussion of the lunar

signs/nakshatras. I have a firm hold on some of them, but certainly not all

27. Maybe we could take up the study on this forum, and everyone could

contribute their personal experience.

 

(...)

>[sari] Why bother about the sidereal zodiac then at all? Because its

predictive

>power that's based on correct planetary rulers of the signs. The house

>rulers are used extensively in prediction, and that's the main reason they

>praise the predictive power of jyotish - and that's the reason why house

>rulers are not much used in today's tropical astrology: they have simply

>lost their power.

 

This is basically the tropical/sidereal problem in a nutshell. Tropical

rulerships simply don't work unless they belong to the end of tropical

signs because then they're working for the sidereal sign of the same name.

There's just enough ovelap of signs to make the zodiac question seem

confusing because the tropical equal house rulers for final degrees of

tropical signs will work, so astrologers can use these to support the

tropical zodiac. The same is true of planets in signs. There is just enough

overlap so tropical rulerships will 'work' some of the time.

 

So taking your chart, Felicia, in the tropical zodiac Scorpio is the

ascendant, and Mars is your ascendant lord. Sidereally Venus is your

ascendant, making Venus your chart lord. Venus is in the 7th, pointing to

the karmic destiny or karmic balance/debt related to 'the other.' So

one-to-one counseling work would be following your personal destiny. Also

Venus in the 7th might emphasize the need to cooperate. (We still have a

great deal to learn about the difference between factual information and

what is a problem of the soul in astrological terms.)

 

Now taking Mars as the sidereal 7th lord (partners or the marriage

situation). It's in trouble as it's in extreme 'childhood' (only 35 minutes

into Pisces) and not situated near any equal house cusp. Mars is also

combust. Actually since Mars is the dispositor of your ascendant lord,

Venus, this throws the emphasis into sidereal Pisces and everything that

sign/mansion represents. So Venus itself (relationships) is in trouble. But

this is distinct from spiritual or karmic work with others (ascendant lord

Venus in the 7th).

 

In the sidereal zodiac Pluto is the co-ruler of Aries, the sign on the 7th

cusp. Pluto is with Uranus, so this is going to reflect in the marriage

situation.

 

Sun, Mercury, Jupiter are all in the 6th. This is reflected in your concern

for health matters in your work, so it's good to study astrology that

emphasizes this area, even consider some traditional medical training.

 

Sidereal 10th lord is the Moon, which is near the 9th cusp with Rahu. Only

B.V. Raman relates Rahu to astrology (as just one of Rahu's areas). I've

found this to be so, and of course the 9th is also said to represent

metaphysical studies being the ancient 'house of God.'

 

In a nutshell, Venus in your chart and its aspects reprent *You* (Venus is

the key that receives the energy of other planets), while Mars and its

aspects represent the other. These rulerships are reversed in the tropical

zodiac. This might be why you're having trouble gaining insight into your

own chart. Neptune is your most powerful personal influence because Neptune

is in close opposition to Venus.

 

More about your Moon nakshatra later.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese wrote about Felicia's chart:

 

Sun, Mercury, Jupiter are all in the 6th. This is reflected in your concern

for health matters in your work, so it's good to study astrology that

emphasizes this area, even consider some traditional medical training.

 

Sari:

 

I too noticed the emphasis on the sixth house. One day I studied charts with

an emphasized sixth house, and one common feature seemed to be that those

people were " listening to a different drummer " . They were loners, original

geniuses, somehow 'different', going their own way, but they could be very

inventive and unique thinkers. Of course Mozart with his Sun, Mercury and

Saturn in the sixth house is maybe the most famous example about this. In

modern Western astrology the sixth house is associated with Virgo, and so

it's seen as a bit of a dull or technical house; technical - yes, dull or

ordinary - never.

 

Patrice wrote:

 

Indeed,the moon sign is better for give a good interpretation.

 

Sari:

 

Hi Patrice, I too liked about your examples. But I for one have been

thinking about sidereal Sun signs - they are in fact just as visible as

their tropical counterparts. Sun sign astrology is so popular because the

Sun is probably the most visible and most easily classifiable thing in the

outer personality. Why should that change with the zodiac? Maybe one should

start about observing Sun signs after all when trying to grasp the sidereal

signs, just like when one starts to study tropical astrology.

 

Therese wrote:

 

Sun is the past, what we've brought with us from many past lives and

between-life experiences. Sun contains the seed of the soul which

estericists tell us resides in the astral heart.

 

Sari:

 

This is an interesting point because then the Sun would be the part of us

that's most natural and self-evident, that we actualize most readily and

that's visible right from the childhood. Progress then would be to go

forward from that, maybe to one's ascendant and its ruler? That's actually

something they teach in tropical astrology too, that when one grows older,

she starts to manifest more her ascendant. Maybe that's a concept that could

be adopted sidereally too.

 

Azaad wrote:

 

Just wanted to mention one interesting case study is Marlon Brando. He has

Sun in Aries tropically but Sun and stellium in Pisces sidereally.

Having read his biography he was anything but melancholic or other such

tropical piscean notions. He was a rebel from a young age and a prankster

even in his professional life, somehow used his instincts well even though

he was a Method actor. The movie that made him famous, as a rough biker

character, was also a very Aries kinda role. Was very very moody and on the

spur of the moment guy.

 

But there are other lesser known sides of him. He tried to help the native

Americans, protested and even got arrested for that. Was once making a movie

for UN on India's caste system and was pretty moved by that. I suppose that

could be his Piscean empathy side showing.

 

Sari:

 

Exactly! This is just the duality of Pisces: rashness and empathy combined.

And Brando had his Sun and Moon in Revati nakshatra... one of my favourite

examples of Revati and Pisces is John Lennon (9th October 1940 at 6.30 PM

Liverpool) who had Revati/Pisces rising. He was just that kind of

combination of foul language, rashness, even violence, and then " Imagine "

and all these peace demonstrations and sensitivity.

 

Vettius Valens wrote about Pisces (and we have a good reason to think he was

writing about sidereal Pisces) on the 2nd century:

 

" Pisces is a feminine sign in the heavens, very wet, pertaining to waterside

trades, bicorporeal, prolific, full of eruptions, scaly, sinewy, humped,

leprous, of twin form, mute, restless, rough, opposed to itself because of

being both in the south and in the north. It is also very wet, descending,

slavish, changeable, prolific, bicorporeal, sociable, mutilated, a cause of

wandering, complicated.

Those so born [Pisces rising - Sari's note] are inconstant, of two minds

those who change from bad to good, erotic, servile, licentious, prolific,

popular. "

 

Note " those who change from bad to good " - doesn't that point straight to

Lennon?

 

Best, Sari

[Guest guest]

At 03:33 PM 3/18/08 +0200, Sari wrote:

>Hi Patrice, I too liked about your examples. But I for one have been

>thinking about sidereal Sun signs - they are in fact just as visible as

>their tropical counterparts. Sun sign astrology is so popular because the

>Sun is probably the most visible and most easily classifiable thing in the

>outer personality. Why should that change with the zodiac?

 

Maybe it should't. Cayce said the Sun was the most important position in

the horoscope, probably because the Sun contains the seeds of our past.

 

>This is an interesting point because then the Sun would be the part of us

>that's most natural and self-evident, that we actualize most readily and

>that's visible right from the childhood. Progress then would be to go

>forward from that, maybe to one's ascendant and its ruler?

 

That's the way I look at the chart The Sun contains all we have been up to

now, and the ascendant lord is what we should be working on in this life.

Aspects included, of course. Then the Moon is just how our emotions and

mind function, not so much a direction as just how we're operating in this

life.

 

Therese