Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Zodiac and Constellations

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

At 09:08 AM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>

>Good points. Is it that to be a " Siderealist " today means we're talking

about essentially starting from scratch and also rewriting [tropical]

astrology where there's analogy to make it conform to the constellations?

Where else can or should we start? :^)

 

Hi Don,

 

To be a siderealist today means that an astrologer uses the sidereal

zodiac, and considers the planets in the sidereal signs. Thus, Saturn is

exalted in Libra and stronger there

than in Aries, the sign of its fall. However, this doesn't necessarily mean

that Saturn is 'good' in Libra. On the YoungAstro site astrologers have

been looking at charts of criminals, and Mars was often at home in Aries,

whereas in some of the 'good people' charts Mars was in its fall in

Cancer. The upshot is that we may not want a Mars influence that is too

strong.

 

>Regarding " sign " rulerships aren't there differences with the " classical "

and then the " new " ? The disputed planetship of Pluto brings that to

light--couldn't a critic ask, 'If it's not a planet then how can it be a

ruler?'

 

We're always safe staying with the classical rulers. Many siderealists

never accepted Pluto as lord of Scorpio. Either (according to siderealists)

Pluto belongs to Aries, or it doesn't rule any zodiac sign. Quite a number

of tropical astrologers also keep only the classical sign lords, but use

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in other ways.

 

>You said: " If the Kepler reports are based on the position of planets in

relation to the ascendant and M.C., then they would say about the same

thing for both the tropical and sidereal. " I confess each time I read that

I get a different idea. I guess the impetus is about houses. I would

comment that my research shows that classical siderealists did not use

houses as we know them today.

 

I guess you mean 'classical astrologers.' The first house system was

sign-as-house. Any planet in the ascendant sign, for example, was said to

be in the first house. But there are early indications that how close a

planet was to a cusp was considered important. (See Dorotheus who mentions

a 15 degree cuspal orb for a planet to have first house influence.)

 

>When Ptolemy spoke of 'houses' he didn't mean the horoscope houses known

to modern astrologers, he used no house-division system other than the

zodiacal constellation itself.

 

The zodiacal constellations were never used as houses. A sidereal sign

isn't a constellation. The constellations in the sky are irregualar. Only

individual stars were considered depending on where they fell in the signs

or if they were rising or culminating. But, yes, early astrologers used

only 'sign-as-house.'

 

Thus the 'house' of a planet simply meant the particular zodiacal

constellation(s) with which a certain planet had the greatest affinity and

in which it developed maximum power (also by triplicity, exaltation, term,

etc.).

 

The origin of ruling planets is something of a mystery. We have the scheme

of classical rulerships, but not how these rulerships came about. We know

the so-called exaltations came from Mesopotamia, however.

 

>Yes, the interpretation will be ostensibly for Tropical signs but recall

that two thousand years ago they coincided with the Constellations...

 

The two zodiacs were in the same area of the sky, but the constellations

are a separate entity.

 

>...So since they started out the same, could it be that it was the

Tropical (definitions) that moved?...

 

This is what siderealists Rupert Gleadow says in YOUR CHARACTER IN THE

ZODIAC. He explains, for example, how in ancient times Cancer was a sign of

the politician (see our current president's horoscope...), but now it's

said to be a sign of the home.

 

However, the current psychological interpretations of the signs only came

about in the 20th century, and they never turn out to be true in research.

That's because psychology is in the planets rather than the signs.

 

Is it that today's " Tropical " definitions are still the valid ones for the

Sidereal--but not for the Tropical anymore because they moved and they

didn't adjust for that?

 

The genuine Tropical interpretations are valid if they're based on

*observation,* but in my opinion the interpretations really belong to the

underlying sidereal sign (which would be the previous sign from the

Tropical viewpoint.) For more detail, see the articles on Aries, Taurus and

Gemini here: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

An example of observation is when Tropical astrologers say that Taurus can

be stubborn and more into its own view than interested in relationships.

This doesn't fit the rulership of relationship-orinted Venus or the

sociable Moon, exalted in Taurus. But it does fit a sign (Aries) whose

lords are Mars and perhaps Pluto.

 

Therese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Therese,

 

Yes, I know you can count more than the usual 12 constellations on the plane of

the ecliptic. I am using conventional conversational terms except where

indicated.

 

By " observation " of delineation are you not agreeing that we start with

conventional " tropical " interpretations of sidereal " signs " ?

 

Don

 

-

therese hamilton

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:29 AM

Re: Zodiac and Constellations

 

 

At 09:08 AM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>

>Good points. Is it that to be a " Siderealist " today means we're talking

about essentially starting from scratch and also rewriting [tropical]

astrology where there's analogy to make it conform to the constellations?

Where else can or should we start? :^)

 

Hi Don,

 

To be a siderealist today means that an astrologer uses the sidereal

zodiac, and considers the planets in the sidereal signs. Thus, Saturn is

exalted in Libra and stronger there

than in Aries, the sign of its fall. However, this doesn't necessarily mean

that Saturn is 'good' in Libra. On the YoungAstro site astrologers have

been looking at charts of criminals, and Mars was often at home in Aries,

whereas in some of the 'good people' charts Mars was in its fall in

Cancer. The upshot is that we may not want a Mars influence that is too

strong.

 

>Regarding " sign " rulerships aren't there differences with the " classical "

and then the " new " ? The disputed planetship of Pluto brings that to

light--couldn't a critic ask, 'If it's not a planet then how can it be a

ruler?'

 

We're always safe staying with the classical rulers. Many siderealists

never accepted Pluto as lord of Scorpio. Either (according to siderealists)

Pluto belongs to Aries, or it doesn't rule any zodiac sign. Quite a number

of tropical astrologers also keep only the classical sign lords, but use

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in other ways.

 

>You said: " If the Kepler reports are based on the position of planets in

relation to the ascendant and M.C., then they would say about the same

thing for both the tropical and sidereal. " I confess each time I read that

I get a different idea. I guess the impetus is about houses. I would

comment that my research shows that classical siderealists did not use

houses as we know them today.

 

I guess you mean 'classical astrologers.' The first house system was

sign-as-house. Any planet in the ascendant sign, for example, was said to

be in the first house. But there are early indications that how close a

planet was to a cusp was considered important. (See Dorotheus who mentions

a 15 degree cuspal orb for a planet to have first house influence.)

 

>When Ptolemy spoke of 'houses' he didn't mean the horoscope houses known

to modern astrologers, he used no house-division system other than the

zodiacal constellation itself.

 

The zodiacal constellations were never used as houses. A sidereal sign

isn't a constellation. The constellations in the sky are irregualar. Only

individual stars were considered depending on where they fell in the signs

or if they were rising or culminating. But, yes, early astrologers used

only 'sign-as-house.'

 

Thus the 'house' of a planet simply meant the particular zodiacal

constellation(s) with which a certain planet had the greatest affinity and

in which it developed maximum power (also by triplicity, exaltation, term,

etc.).

 

The origin of ruling planets is something of a mystery. We have the scheme

of classical rulerships, but not how these rulerships came about. We know

the so-called exaltations came from Mesopotamia, however.

 

>Yes, the interpretation will be ostensibly for Tropical signs but recall

that two thousand years ago they coincided with the Constellations...

 

The two zodiacs were in the same area of the sky, but the constellations

are a separate entity.

 

>...So since they started out the same, could it be that it was the

Tropical (definitions) that moved?...

 

This is what siderealists Rupert Gleadow says in YOUR CHARACTER IN THE

ZODIAC. He explains, for example, how in ancient times Cancer was a sign of

the politician (see our current president's horoscope...), but now it's

said to be a sign of the home.

 

However, the current psychological interpretations of the signs only came

about in the 20th century, and they never turn out to be true in research.

That's because psychology is in the planets rather than the signs.

 

Is it that today's " Tropical " definitions are still the valid ones for the

Sidereal--but not for the Tropical anymore because they moved and they

didn't adjust for that?

 

The genuine Tropical interpretations are valid if they're based on

*observation,* but in my opinion the interpretations really belong to the

underlying sidereal sign (which would be the previous sign from the

Tropical viewpoint.) For more detail, see the articles on Aries, Taurus and

Gemini here: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

An example of observation is when Tropical astrologers say that Taurus can

be stubborn and more into its own view than interested in relationships.

This doesn't fit the rulership of relationship-orinted Venus or the

sociable Moon, exalted in Taurus. But it does fit a sign (Aries) whose

lords are Mars and perhaps Pluto.

 

Therese

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 12:56 PM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>

>Yes, I know you can count more than the usual 12 constellations on the

plane of the ecliptic. I am using conventional conversational terms except

where indicated.

 

Hi Don,

 

Some western siderealists still use the word 'constellation' for a sidereal

sign, but that use opens us to ridicule and misunderstanding from others.

In India signs are never called constellations because that term is often

used for the nakshatras or lunar mansions which are identified by

individual stars or asterisms. I guess I'm a purist, and don't like to use

incorrect conversational terms. Astrology needs to clear up its vocabulary.

 

>By " observation " of delineation are you not agreeing that we start with

conventional " tropical " interpretations of sidereal " signs " ?

 

Yes, that's quite right, and has been pointed out by Cyril Fagan and other

early siderealists. Any interpretation based on actual obervation is

useful. But what happens is that the tropical books begin with a few

observations and then add information to the signs from theory, and that's

where the textbooks start to miss.

 

But remember that the observations of Tropical astrologers apply to the

**previously named sidereal sign.** I personally don't believe there is a

tropical zodiac. All astrologers are seeing in my opinion are traits of the

sidereal signs. You can show some evidence for this by noting that the last

few degrees of tropical signs tend to behave more like the following

tropical sign because these traits align with the underlying sidereal sign.

The last few degrees of tropical signs (today) line up with a new sidereal

sign.

 

I believe that the interpretation software reports simply apply tropical

meanings to the sidereal signs of the same name. But I haven't seen most of

the interpretive reports. If these reports say, for example, that sidereal

'fiery signs' are fiery in nature, they are missing the boat. The sidereal

Aries trigon (called 'fire' in the tropical system) has a very different

expression sidereally.

 

Therese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Therese,

 

We're going around in circles. If you'll send me by private email *in strict

confidence* your DOB info I'll send you privately your tropical Cosmo and

" sidereal " Cosmo reports and we can be on the same page here?

 

Best,

Don

 

 

-

therese hamilton

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:35 PM

Re: Zodiac and Constellations

 

 

At 12:56 PM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>

>Yes, I know you can count more than the usual 12 constellations on the

plane of the ecliptic. I am using conventional conversational terms except

where indicated.

 

Hi Don,

 

Some western siderealists still use the word 'constellation' for a sidereal

sign, but that use opens us to ridicule and misunderstanding from others.

In India signs are never called constellations because that term is often

used for the nakshatras or lunar mansions which are identified by

individual stars or asterisms. I guess I'm a purist, and don't like to use

incorrect conversational terms. Astrology needs to clear up its vocabulary.

 

>By " observation " of delineation are you not agreeing that we start with

conventional " tropical " interpretations of sidereal " signs " ?

 

Yes, that's quite right, and has been pointed out by Cyril Fagan and other

early siderealists. Any interpretation based on actual obervation is

useful. But what happens is that the tropical books begin with a few

observations and then add information to the signs from theory, and that's

where the textbooks start to miss.

 

But remember that the observations of Tropical astrologers apply to the

**previously named sidereal sign.** I personally don't believe there is a

tropical zodiac. All astrologers are seeing in my opinion are traits of the

sidereal signs. You can show some evidence for this by noting that the last

few degrees of tropical signs tend to behave more like the following

tropical sign because these traits align with the underlying sidereal sign.

The last few degrees of tropical signs (today) line up with a new sidereal

sign.

 

I believe that the interpretation software reports simply apply tropical

meanings to the sidereal signs of the same name. But I haven't seen most of

the interpretive reports. If these reports say, for example, that sidereal

'fiery signs' are fiery in nature, they are missing the boat. The sidereal

Aries trigon (called 'fire' in the tropical system) has a very different

expression sidereally.

 

Therese

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, I cannot read those reports. They put me to sleep after the first

couple of paragraphs. I'm sorry. I do have a few reports astrologers have

sent me, but they just seem like so many words that sound very nebulous.

 

I don't think we're going around in circles. We're just discussion

astrological terms and theory.

 

If you want to discuss reports, try this DOB for someone I know very well

(family member), and Su-Mo-Asc are all in one sign, so there will be fewer

words to read: April 23, 1974....7:11 a.m. Oakland, CA. About 17 Tropical

Taurus rising. The birth is exactly timed and is on the B.C.

 

This would be an interesting exercise if you can copy some of the main

ideas from the report to this web site. We'll see what the reports say

about that one sign tropically and sidereally. (Tropical Taurus, Sidereal

Aries)

 

Since I believe we're talking mainly signs, this would be an easy report

from which to excerpt the main ideas concerning only one sign. Focus with

no extra threads. Let's make it a public discussion.

 

Therese

 

At 03:19 PM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>

>We're going around in circles. If you'll send me by private email *in

strict confidence* your DOB info I'll send you privately your tropical

Cosmo and " sidereal " Cosmo reports and we can be on the same page here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Therese,

 

Thanks for the data. I used it to make a Tropical and a " Sidereal " report which

I then sent to this group, labeled appropriately. I was unable to send the

wheels for each, perhaps interested parties could make a wheel in their own

astro program to refer to in the discussion to follow.

 

Therese, it will be interesting to hear your comments on the Tropical vs.

Sidereal interpretations since you know the person whose data is in the reports!

 

I have to fold it up now -- see you all tomorrow.

 

Best,

Don

 

 

-

therese hamilton

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:00 PM

Re: Zodiac and Constellations

 

 

Don, I cannot read those reports. They put me to sleep after the first

couple of paragraphs. I'm sorry. I do have a few reports astrologers have

sent me, but they just seem like so many words that sound very nebulous.

 

I don't think we're going around in circles. We're just discussion

astrological terms and theory.

 

If you want to discuss reports, try this DOB for someone I know very well

(family member), and Su-Mo-Asc are all in one sign, so there will be fewer

words to read: April 23, 1974....7:11 a.m. Oakland, CA. About 17 Tropical

Taurus rising. The birth is exactly timed and is on the B.C.

 

This would be an interesting exercise if you can copy some of the main

ideas from the report to this web site. We'll see what the reports say

about that one sign tropically and sidereally. (Tropical Taurus, Sidereal

Aries)

 

Since I believe we're talking mainly signs, this would be an easy report

from which to excerpt the main ideas concerning only one sign. Focus with

no extra threads. Let's make it a public discussion.

 

Therese

 

At 03:19 PM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>

>We're going around in circles. If you'll send me by private email *in

strict confidence* your DOB info I'll send you privately your tropical

Cosmo and " sidereal " Cosmo reports and we can be on the same page here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 12:46 AM 8/31/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>

>Thanks for the data. I used it to make a Tropical and a " Sidereal " report

which I then sent to this group, labeled appropriately. I was unable to

send the wheels for each, perhaps interested parties could make a wheel in

their own astro program to refer to in the discussion to follow.

>

>Therese, it will be interesting to hear your comments on the Tropical vs.

Sidereal interpretations since you know the person whose data is in the

reports!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Hi Don,

 

This morning I've had only a few minutes, so just quickly scanned the two

readings. Thanks very much for posting them. Later today I'll read them

through. But just with a quick scan they are both Tropically based

readings. That is, the reading for sidereal Aries is a stock reading for

Tropical Aries.

 

No, just with a quick scan, that reading does not fit, and (as I've said

before) the tropical Taurus traits are more inner-Martian such as

stubbornness (sidereal Aries) than Venus or exalted Moon. But I'll try to

find time to write more details later.

 

The point is that the traits of tropical signs correlate with the ruling

planets of sidereal signs, and don't relate to the tropical sign lords. So

tropical astrologers find other reasons for the traits, such as Taurus

being 'fixed.' In the sidereal zodiac it's the planet lords that are most

important.

 

I noted that the Moon conj asc reading was identical in both readings, and

I expect the same is true of other planetary positions. So the readings are

consistent there and don't distinguish between tropical and sidereal.

 

So my point (repeated) is that there is only one influence for any area of

the zodiac, and you can call it (in this case) either sidereal Aries or

Tropical Taurus, but the traits, if genuine, are exactly the same for both.

I'll give specific examples for this person (male...sorry, I forgot to

mention the gender) as soon as possible on this forum.

 

Thanks again, Don! Much appreciated, and I hope others on this forum

appreciate your

effort. I'd like it if others would join this discussion after I describe

the owner of this chart.

 

Therese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...