Guest guest Report post Posted January 5, 2005 Francois wrote: > ...About the zodiacal signs, I would like to know how we can grasp the > correct meaning they have? ...I don't see what IS the difference in > the signs in sidereal or tropical astrology as to how to define them. Hi Francois, Good questions. One way to think about the two zodiacs is to consider them in a cosmological perspective. If the earth's axis didn't wobble over time and stayed perpendicular to the ecliptic, there would be only one zodiac. But since the tilt of the earth's axis in relation to the sun is what creates the tropical zodiac, the tropical is therefore defined by the earth. The sidereal zodiac, on the other hand, is defined by the stars, in that a given point in the starry heavens determines the origin of the 30 degree segments of the sky. So already the sidereal is seen to be a more comprehensive symbology. It takes into account the cosmic circuit beyond the planets; whereas the tropical, as a property of the earth, is limited to the life and cyclic phases of our globe and its inhabitants. The tropical zodiac is a projection outwards from the earth entity, and describes imaginary space. From it come our subjective interpretations of the objective events given by the sidereal. Western tropical emphasizes subjective meaning, and so is more appropos to varying interpretations that explore how or why things happen, along with other symbolic and less demonstrable approaches to the chart. The sidereal presents the earth's perspective in a more literal or self-evident way, in contrast to the non-literal or metaphorical emphasis of the tropical. Hindu or western sidereal emphasizes events and the things in themselves, tending more towards the fatedness or givenness of individual and collective experience. The sidereal provides the forms that the psyche will operate with. My experience is that both the event itself and its interpretive or subjective meaning are needed and must be present. And in fact, both are present, cosmologically speaking. The medieval astrologers thought of the different parts of the cosmos as layers of existence or reality. According to this view, the two zodiacs would represent two different hierarchical levels. The tropical would be entirely sub-lunar and oriented towards supporting the life of and on the earth. The sidereal would be " of the stars " , also representing the earth's view, but from the broader perspective of the earth's view of the sun's life (which is itself a star). The planetary spheres would be the intermediaries between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs, providing linkages between and manifesting them both. In this vertical view of levels, the sidereal would be qualitatively prior to the tropical, because it rests higher in the scheme. This special quality of the sidereal makes a certain amount of sense to me. After all, we could site a different tropical zodiac for every planet in the Solar System, each one being defined as the earth is by the unique tilt of its axis to the sun. In other words, a Venus-centric chart would have its own tropical zodiac, as would all the others. But there can only be one sidereal. The stars are so incredibly far away from us that they hold the same essential angular relations to every part of the Solar System as they do to us. -Greg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
