Zodiac Question

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...

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

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: