Guest guest Report post Posted January 6, 2005 On Jan 4, 2005 Greg Kramer wrote: >>Francois wrote: >>...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... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Welcome to the sidereal list, Greg! You have some nice rhetoric here. Let's see if I understand you: You say the sidereal zodiac is more comprehensive while the tropical zodiac is more subjective and earth centered. How would you apply this difference in an actual horoscope reading? Are you saying that you use both zodiacs when you study a horoscope? Therese You wrote: >>...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... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 7, 2005 Therese wrote: > Welcome to the sidereal list, Greg! You have some nice rhetoric here. Hi Therese, Thank you. It's nice to be here. > Let's see if I understand you: You say the sidereal zodiac is more > comprehensive while the tropical zodiac is more subjective and earth > centered. How would you apply this difference in an actual horoscope > reading? I'm happy to answer your question, but first I'd like to clarify that in addressing Francoise's question, I thought it would be helpful to take a step back from the conventional way of talking about the zodiacs in order to get a fresh look at it. I find that astrologers in general tend to fall into grooves in their thinking about astrological techniques and in the way they explain their understanding. I also find that astrologers have a tendency to explain a technique they use by describing a few examples of its observed effects and settling on that as adequate proof, rather than by also investigating directly into its originating cause. Since an effect is always dependent upon its cause, it's helpful to try to identify the root cause of any successful outcome, whether that be in a literal or symbolic mode. If we can do this, then the range of possible effects that could manifest with any given astrological placement becomes more accessible to us because we're now able to grasp the underlying principles at work. We must find these things out for ourselves. It does no good to parrot someone else's understanding, and there is limited value in studying the historical development of a technique if we can't comprehend the basic idea in our own mind and experience. The reason I brought up the cosmology of the signs and constellations was to try to see the bigger context in which the zodiac arises for us. The objective is to reveal something more principial operating here, such as the idea that the sidereal and tropical zodiacs could represent two different streams of symbolic concepts that don't cancel each other out. Confusing?, yes. But an impossible contradiction?, I don't think so. The idea of the seasons and seasonal cycles of the earth is a legitimate symbolism in its own right, guiding a metaphorical interpretation of terrestrial experience; just as the idea of a zodiac of the stars is legitimate in being free from the error that the adjustment of the tropical introduces. I understand that this is a sidereal list, and I intend to honor that focus, but the question was asked, and my position is that being able to see this distinction allows each view its own sphere of influence, even though ultimately there is really only one zodiac that is being seen from two vantage-points. As an analogy, in a car crash, the police report will often show two very different world-views of the drivers trying to explain what happened, assigning seemingly contradictory causes and blame. From reading the report you would think there were two different crashes, but it was only one accident. Same thing with the zodiac. To get back to your question, when doing a reading, I certainly would not embark on a cosmological discussion with my client! That would of course be highly inappropriate. But seeing the chart in a broader perspective that reveals something of how these conditions arise does give me more tools to work with in being attentive to my client's needs. I would definitely apply the different influences of the two zodiacs in readings with clients, but not in the manner I think you are referring to, which is having both charts in front of me as I do the reading. I'm currently using a different approach than that, which I don't think is proper for me to pursue here. I'm here to learn more about how this group uses astrology, not to push my own agenda. I would of course have to translate my impressions of the different levels of the chart into terms that fit the working reality of my client; and as you know, this is where our study becomes a true Art. > Are you saying that you use both zodiacs when you study a horoscope? Technically no, my use of sidereal astrology is primarily metaphysical, and in working with its effects as it applies to transits and the natal chart. Sidereal astrology, as I understand it (both western and eastern), has two basic methodologies: mundane or empirical, and metaphysical or intelligible, although few astrologers seem to realize this. I'm actually quite deep into western metaphysical astrology, taking into account influences from both the eastern and ancient worlds -- in addition to doing natal chart readings -- but since this seems to be a mundane-oriented group, I'll spare you the esotericism! In any event, I think I have something of value to offer this group. I'm fairly new to mundane sidereal, although I've been precessing my Solar Returns for a long time and have developed a healthy respect and appreciation for the Jyotish point-of-view. I know a little about Hindu techniques such as the nakshatras, the dasa system, and so on, but I haven't really studied them enough that I can do predictive readings with it. My main interest in being here is to learn more about sidereal astrology and to better understand exactly what its practitioners are seeing in it. I'm also interested in how the Hindu methods differ from the more westernized Fagan-Bradley system. I apologize for the long response, and hope I haven't made any enemies in trying to be honest in presenting my position! -Greg Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 7, 2005 Greg... No need to apologize.... Communicate as you wish.... As for this being a " sidereal " list, understand that this is an evolved list. Evolve it as you wish. A healthy and progressive list is allowed to evolve...and this list includes star prognosticators of all stripes... Consider yourself seasoning for a healthy appetite.... I agree with you that sidereal & tropical share the similarity of providing a background/backdrop for cyclical and astro-phenomenal studies.... in other words, one can cast charts either tropically or sidereally and depending on the knowledge of the individual can produce viable results. In my opinion its the interpretation of the " math " that separates the sidereal from the tropical and makes it far more attractive. The rhetoric of which I will not bore you with........ Simply do the research and discover for yourself.... What is western metaphysical astrology? Without advancing an " agenda " .... What is your " different approach'? Cool Beans... Jivio PS: What is a realist? Greg Kramer <grkramer wrote: Therese wrote: > Welcome to the sidereal list, Greg! You have some nice rhetoric here. Hi Therese, Thank you. It's nice to be here. > Let's see if I understand you: You say the sidereal zodiac is more > comprehensive while the tropical zodiac is more subjective and earth > centered. How would you apply this difference in an actual horoscope > reading? I'm happy to answer your question, but first I'd like to clarify that in addressing Francoise's question, I thought it would be helpful to take a step back from the conventional way of talking about the zodiacs in order to get a fresh look at it. I find that astrologers in general tend to fall into grooves in their thinking about astrological techniques and in the way they explain their understanding. I also find that astrologers have a tendency to explain a technique they use by describing a few examples of its observed effects and settling on that as adequate proof, rather than by also investigating directly into its originating cause. Since an effect is always dependent upon its cause, it's helpful to try to identify the root cause of any successful outcome, whether that be in a literal or symbolic mode. If we can do this, then the range of possible effects that could manifest with any given astrological placement becomes more accessible to us because we're now able to grasp the underlying principles at work. We must find these things out for ourselves. It does no good to parrot someone else's understanding, and there is limited value in studying the historical development of a technique if we can't comprehend the basic idea in our own mind and experience. The reason I brought up the cosmology of the signs and constellations was to try to see the bigger context in which the zodiac arises for us. The objective is to reveal something more principial operating here, such as the idea that the sidereal and tropical zodiacs could represent two different streams of symbolic concepts that don't cancel each other out. Confusing?, yes. But an impossible contradiction?, I don't think so. The idea of the seasons and seasonal cycles of the earth is a legitimate symbolism in its own right, guiding a metaphorical interpretation of terrestrial experience; just as the idea of a zodiac of the stars is legitimate in being free from the error that the adjustment of the tropical introduces. I understand that this is a sidereal list, and I intend to honor that focus, but the question was asked, and my position is that being able to see this distinction allows each view its own sphere of influence, even though ultimately there is really only one zodiac that is being seen from two vantage-points. As an analogy, in a car crash, the police report will often show two very different world-views of the drivers trying to explain what happened, assigning seemingly contradictory causes and blame. From reading the report you would think there were two different crashes, but it was only one accident. Same thing with the zodiac. To get back to your question, when doing a reading, I certainly would not embark on a cosmological discussion with my client! That would of course be highly inappropriate. But seeing the chart in a broader perspective that reveals something of how these conditions arise does give me more tools to work with in being attentive to my client's needs. I would definitely apply the different influences of the two zodiacs in readings with clients, but not in the manner I think you are referring to, which is having both charts in front of me as I do the reading. I'm currently using a different approach than that, which I don't think is proper for me to pursue here. I'm here to learn more about how this group uses astrology, not to push my own agenda. I would of course have to translate my impressions of the different levels of the chart into terms that fit the working reality of my client; and as you know, this is where our study becomes a true Art. > Are you saying that you use both zodiacs when you study a horoscope? Technically no, my use of sidereal astrology is primarily metaphysical, and in working with its effects as it applies to transits and the natal chart. Sidereal astrology, as I understand it (both western and eastern), has two basic methodologies: mundane or empirical, and metaphysical or intelligible, although few astrologers seem to realize this. I'm actually quite deep into western metaphysical astrology, taking into account influences from both the eastern and ancient worlds -- in addition to doing natal chart readings -- but since this seems to be a mundane-oriented group, I'll spare you the esotericism! In any event, I think I have something of value to offer this group. I'm fairly new to mundane sidereal, although I've been precessing my Solar Returns for a long time and have developed a healthy respect and appreciation for the Jyotish point-of-view. I know a little about Hindu techniques such as the nakshatras, the dasa system, and so on, but I haven't really studied them enough that I can do predictive readings with it. My main interest in being here is to learn more about sidereal astrology and to better understand exactly what its practitioners are seeing in it. I'm also interested in how the Hindu methods differ from the more westernized Fagan-Bradley system. I apologize for the long response, and hope I haven't made any enemies in trying to be honest in presenting my position! -Greg " 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 8, 2005 At 02:16 AM 1/7/05 -0500, Greg wrote: > >... >The reason I brought up the cosmology of the signs and constellations >was to try to see the bigger context in which the zodiac arises for us. > The objective is to reveal something more principial operating here, >such as the idea that the sidereal and tropical zodiacs could represent >two different streams of symbolic concepts that don't cancel each other >out. Confusing?, yes... Greg, this is a concept that's very popular with Tropical astrologers, though the two different sets of operating principles may be seen differently by different astrologers. The seasonal and cosmological--yes, Tropical astrologers consider the zodiacs in relation to these two concepts. But these are only words until someone demonstrates how they can be applied to actual horoscopes. The planets are the planets, and have the same meanings in any zodiac. You said you were interested in knowing something about the differences between western sidereal astrology and Jyotish. Well, you are correct about the mundane emphasis. Western sidereal astrologers are into the 'nuts and bolts' of astrology. " Take an event and show me the relevant planetary patterns that clearly relate to the event. " Angular planets predominate. In contrast Jyotish can be highly metaphysical, into karma, into gods and goddesses, and many of the techniques are very close to Tropical astrology. >I apologize for the long response, and hope I haven't made any enemies >in trying to be honest in presenting my position! Oh, you haven't made any enemies! Thanks for your thoughts. You'll find though, that western sidereal astrologers are very practical people. Very much into 'show me.' Men and women of few words; mostly the mathematics of how astrology works. Weak in the natal branch, however. Much to learn there. Therese Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites