Merging of eastern and western

March 19, 2008

At 09:44 AM 3/18/08 -0700, Felicia wrote:

>Hello again,

>

> Since I have the western astrology background and is now venturing into

the eastern astrology side, I am just curious if you have found it useful

to use both in your practice. Or, would you recommend sticking with one or

the other?

Some astrologers do use both system, but for myself I'd find it utterly

confusing and unnecessary. I simply take tropical sign observation and

appy them to the underlying sidereal sign. I think this is something you'll

work out for yourself over time.

Therese

March 19, 2008

Hmmm... Thanks Therese, I see what you mean about it being confusing.

I guess that is more so now for me because I am still soaked in the western

astrology principles so it is hard to imagine totally letting it all go.

But in time, I suppose we'll see how that evolve...

Felicia

Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

At 09:44 AM 3/18/08 -0700, Felicia wrote:

>Hello again,

>

> Since I have the western astrology background and is now venturing into

the eastern astrology side, I am just curious if you have found it useful

to use both in your practice. Or, would you recommend sticking with one or

the other?

Some astrologers do use both system, but for myself I'd find it utterly

confusing and unnecessary. I simply take tropical sign observation and

appy them to the underlying sidereal sign. I think this is something you'll

work out for yourself over time.

Therese

March 19, 2008

Hi Felicia,

Almost all of us began as western tropical astrologers. I used the tropical

system for ten years. Here's my thinking:

(1) If the tropoical dispositors and house lords don't work, why use them?

(2) If you can transfer anything useful about the tropical signs (usually

related to a sidereal lunar mansion), why use tropical signs?? Well, a good

answer is that's what clients can relate to. It would take a massive shift

for everyone to toss the tropical zodiac in favor of the sidereal.

(3) The planets are the planets, and any relationship between them aspect

wise doesn't change. So aspects and relationships remain the same.

But Bettina and I both found it difficult initially to 'read' a chart in

the psychological manner when we first made the switch. It takes a while. I

think Graha Sutras will help.

Pleae excuse errors and missing letters in my posts. I'm tying to answer

all of them, and my keyboard sticks a little, leaving out letters.

Therese

At 06:34 PM 3/18/08 -0700, you wrote:

>Hmmm... Thanks Therese, I see what you mean about it being confusing.

>

> I guess that is more so now for me because I am still soaked in the

western astrology principles so it is hard to imagine totally letting it

all go.

>

March 23, 2008

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest wrote:

>

why use tropical signs?? Well, a good

> answer is that's what clients can relate to. It would take a

massive shift

> for everyone to toss the tropical zodiac in favor of the sidereal.

>

Hi Therese,

Yes, it would be very difficult, in deed, to tell someone who's been

seeing themselves as a tropical Aquarian Sun that they should now see

themselves as a Capricorn Sun. An Aquarius probably sees the

Capricorn personality as being too rigid and boring :-)

The other thing is...Is it possible that the tropical chart and the

sidereal charts are both accurate, possibly depicting two different

sides of a person?

I find this to be true in myself. I can see that both charts apply to

me.

Could this somehow be similar to the fact that Jyotish also uses the

navamsha chart in order to get a complete reading?

Is it possible that the tropical chart describes a potential and the

sidereal chart describes the manifestation of that potential?

The reason I'm saying this is related to my training in evolutionary

astrology where the sign describes what the person is put here on

earth to do or become. For example, an Aries's evolutionary purpose

is to demonstrate bravery, to be courageous, to assert himself and to

take intiatives. This could very well mean he doesn't yet have those

qualities and he must work at it.

If we believe (as some do) in the zodiac as an evolutionary cirle,

then Aries is an evolution from the past life's Pisces, so he might

be more inclined to show Piscean characteristics from the previous

life.

In this case, the Piscean characteristics are realized

characteristics that can be described by the sidereal zodiac, and the

potential or destiny characteristic will be described by the tropical

zodiac.

I realize that I don't have much basis to base this theory on and

that I am a virtual newbie in astrological research, however, I'd

like to offer it just as a point of further discussion.

If you tell me that this is absolute non-sense. That's okay too,

because the answer would still be a good lesson.

As you can see, I'm just indulging in my Gemini Moon...

:-)

Felicia

March 23, 2008

At 11:00 PM 3/22/08 -0000, Felicia wrote:

>

>Yes, it would be very difficult, indeed, to tell someone who's been

>seeing themselves as a tropical Aquarian Sun that they should now see

>themselves as a Capricorn Sun.

Well, it's not so bad if they understand that sidereal Capricorn is the

same as tropical Aquarius. But that takes some getting used to and they

have to understand the underlying planetary symbolism.

>An Aquarius probably sees the

>Capricorn personality as being too rigid and boring :-)

But sidereal Capricorn isn't that way because the conservative outlook is

related to Jupiter rather than Saturn. See, the tropical sign symbolism is

all mixed up, so from the tropical point of view, the planetary symbolism

is also mixed up.

>The other thing is...Is it possible that the tropical chart and the

>sidereal charts are both accurate, possibly depicting two different

>sides of a person?

This is the straw that tropical astrologers grasp when they want to believe

that both zodiacs are valid. You will find many tropical astrologers that

think like this, but only a few sidereal astrologers. Some western Jyotish

astrologers are making a place in their mind for both zodiacs. Western

sidereal astrologers of the Fagan-Bradley school don't even believe the

tropical zodiac exists.

>Could this somehow be similar to the fact that Jyotish also uses the

>navamsha chart in order to get a complete reading?

No.

>Is it possible that the tropical chart describes a potential and the

>sidereal chart describes the manifestation of that potential?

No, not as I see it anyway. It's all in the sidereal chart.

>The reason I'm saying this is related to my training in evolutionary

>astrology where the sign describes what the person is put here on

>earth to do or become. For example, an Aries's evolutionary purpose

>is to demonstrate bravery, to be courageous, to assert himself and to

>take intiatives. This could very well mean he doesn't yet have those

>qualities and he must work at it.

This would contradict the Jyotish teaching that the soul is inherent in the

Sun, so the person already IS the Sun.

>If we believe (as some do) in the zodiac as an evolutionary cirle,

>then Aries is an evolution from the past life's Pisces, so he might

>be more inclined to show Piscean characteristics from the previous

>life.

Edgar Cayce was asked if this type of pattern was true, and he said, " No! "

Felicia, if you continue to study Jyotish, I think this type of question

will resolve itself as you get more comfortable with the signs. But any

evolution is going to be in the planets rather than the signs. Cayce said

the signs were basically unimportant compared to the planets, only

represening passing influences. This is why I think you'll find Cayce's

ideas helpful to evolutionary astrology.

Also it's helpful to remember that any astrology book comes from the

author's own personal perspective. Almost everything written on astrology

is only theory rather than fact. So hardly anything can be guaranteed to be

true. This is why research into astrology is so important. I do trust Edgar

Cayce because he could read the Akashic records. But this isn't true of

today's astrologers.

Therese

March 23, 2008

Felicia wrote:

> Yes, it would be very difficult, in deed, to tell someone who's been

> seeing themselves as a tropical Aquarian Sun that they should now see

> themselves as a Capricorn Sun. An Aquarius probably sees the

> Capricorn personality as being too rigid and boring :-)

Sari:

But I don't think that tropical Aquarians change only because their Suns are

sidereally in Capricorn. How could they suddenly change to something

completely different?

According to my observations sidereal Capricorns (people with the Sun in

Capricorn) are in general quite straightforward and earthy, disliking too

much snobbery, feet firmly on the ground. Make a list of people you know

personally with the Sun in sidereal Capricorn (about whom the majority has

the Sun in tropical Aquarius) and think what they have in common. At least

Capricorns I know are in general straightforward, unpretentious, sometimes a

bit loud and very caring in an earthy and practical way. They seldom have

illusions about life. Neither are they boring or rigid... sometimes they can

be a bit pessimistic. They can have a somewhat black and Saturnine sense of

humor. <--------- note that this is a very general Sun sign description

about sidereal Capricorns.

Felicia wrote:

> The other thing is...Is it possible that the tropical chart and the

> sidereal charts are both accurate, possibly depicting two different

> sides of a person?

Sari:

I wouldn't think so. The horoscope usually depicts several different sides

of us. There's the Sun, the Moon, the ascendant, all of the planets... then

if you want to add another zodiac, you can explain everything, it becomes

too all-inclusive. There's several sides of you in your sidereal horoscope

alone: there's this idealistic and playful Airy side (tropicalists call that

Water); then there's the dramatic and emotional Watery side (tropicalists

call that Fire), and there's also the analytical, inquiring and sharp Fiery

side (tropicalists call that Earth).

Felicia wrote:

> As you can see, I'm just indulging in my Gemini Moon...

Sari:

) Yes, it's right on your 9th cusp. Because that Moon is your MC ruler, it

will lead you to your true calling.

Best, Sari

March 23, 2008

At 04:06 PM 3/23/08 +0200, you wrote:

I wouldn't think so. The horoscope usually depicts several different sides

of us. There's the Sun, the Moon, the ascendant, all of the planets... then

if you want to add another zodiac, you can explain everything, it becomes

too all-inclusive. There's several sides of you in your sidereal horoscope

alone: there's this idealistic and playful Airy side (tropicalists call that

Water)...

Sari, this is only your **opinion** of Medieval/modern tropical concepts

applied to the sidereal zodiac. It's best to say " This is my opinion, " or

" This is how I see it... " I personally have not seen this type of symbolism

in the sidereal working out. If we're going to use elements on this forum,

we should be staying with the Jyotish concept. This is to avoid confusing

an already confusing study. There are a number of newbees here, and it's

best not to muddy the waters with tropical or Classical concepts.

Yes, this is my policy as moderator.

Maybe you should begin a new forum combining your love of Medieval

concepts with the sidereal zodiac. Then anyone who is interested in that

combo can join in a lively and spirited discussion. But I would prefer to

keep this forum western sidereal and Jyotish without the Medieval influence.

I totally disagree with this concept of air/playful in the sidereal zodiac.

The sidereal signs are not fire/earth/air/water in the tropical sense.

No more time to write until late this afternoon.

Therese

March 23, 2008

Hello Therese,

Thank you for your patience in my questions. As you probably can see, I'm

currently suffering in the " transition maze " . I need to ask these questions

until I feel resolved about which direction to go and be committed to. However,

it might be another manifestation of the Gemini Moon in me that always ask, " Why

not both? " , until I can feel satified that there is one best one.

You said:

" But sidereal Capricorn isn't that way because the conservative outlook is

related to Jupiter rather than Saturn. See, the tropical sign symbolism is

all mixed up, so from the tropical point of view, the planetary symbolism

is also mixed up. "

I think getting used to these differences in the planets (and signs) will be

the biggest challenge for me, since I'm used to the tropical interpretations.

But not to worry, time is on our side, and I do want to learn!

Warm regards,

Felicia

Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

At 11:00 PM 3/22/08 -0000, Felicia wrote:

>

>Yes, it would be very difficult, indeed, to tell someone who's been

>seeing themselves as a tropical Aquarian Sun that they should now see

>themselves as a Capricorn Sun.

Well, it's not so bad if they understand that sidereal Capricorn is the

same as tropical Aquarius. But that takes some getting used to and they

have to understand the underlying planetary symbolism.

>An Aquarius probably sees the

>Capricorn personality as being too rigid and boring :-)

But sidereal Capricorn isn't that way because the conservative outlook is

related to Jupiter rather than Saturn. See, the tropical sign symbolism is

all mixed up, so from the tropical point of view, the planetary symbolism

is also mixed up.

>The other thing is...Is it possible that the tropical chart and the

>sidereal charts are both accurate, possibly depicting two different

>sides of a person?

This is the straw that tropical astrologers grasp when they want to believe

that both zodiacs are valid. You will find many tropical astrologers that

think like this, but only a few sidereal astrologers. Some western Jyotish

astrologers are making a place in their mind for both zodiacs. Western

sidereal astrologers of the Fagan-Bradley school don't even believe the

tropical zodiac exists.

>Could this somehow be similar to the fact that Jyotish also uses the

>navamsha chart in order to get a complete reading?

No.

>Is it possible that the tropical chart describes a potential and the

>sidereal chart describes the manifestation of that potential?

No, not as I see it anyway. It's all in the sidereal chart.

>The reason I'm saying this is related to my training in evolutionary

>astrology where the sign describes what the person is put here on

>earth to do or become. For example, an Aries's evolutionary purpose

>is to demonstrate bravery, to be courageous, to assert himself and to

>take intiatives. This could very well mean he doesn't yet have those

>qualities and he must work at it.

This would contradict the Jyotish teaching that the soul is inherent in the

Sun, so the person already IS the Sun.

>If we believe (as some do) in the zodiac as an evolutionary cirle,

>then Aries is an evolution from the past life's Pisces, so he might

>be more inclined to show Piscean characteristics from the previous

>life.

Edgar Cayce was asked if this type of pattern was true, and he said, " No! "

Felicia, if you continue to study Jyotish, I think this type of question

will resolve itself as you get more comfortable with the signs. But any

evolution is going to be in the planets rather than the signs. Cayce said

the signs were basically unimportant compared to the planets, only

represening passing influences. This is why I think you'll find Cayce's

ideas helpful to evolutionary astrology.

Also it's helpful to remember that any astrology book comes from the

author's own personal perspective. Almost everything written on astrology

is only theory rather than fact. So hardly anything can be guaranteed to be

true. This is why research into astrology is so important. I do trust Edgar

Cayce because he could read the Akashic records. But this isn't true of

today's astrologers.

Therese

March 24, 2008

At 10:24 AM 3/23/08 -0700, you wrote:

>Hello Therese,

>

> Thank you for your patience in my questions. As you probably can see,

I'm currently suffering in the " transition maze " . I need to ask these

questions until I feel resolved about which direction to go and be

committed to.

Hi Felicia,

Most of us have been through the transition maze as you call it, and it can

last quite a while, even years! This maze is more confusing and complex

than it used to be because now we have the new translations and revivals of

both Hellenistic astrology (largely similar to Jyotish) and

Medieval-Classical, which can be very different than Jyotish. This is why

I'm not happy about discussing these newer concepts on the forum at this

time. They are for advanced study after one has a thorough understanding of

Jyotish.

> I think getting used to these differences in the planets (and signs)

will be the biggest challenge for me, since I'm used to the tropical

interpretations.

It's easier if you forget the signs for awile and concentrate on the

planets. Graha Sutras is a very good start. Then when you go back to the

signs, it will be easier to grasp the symbolism. It's easier to use the

sidereal signs as they are used in India: to determine the strength,

weakness or affliction of a planet. Try to see each sign as sort of an

abstract: Mars is in Scorpio, its own sign, so Mars is going to be able to

express itself like Mars; Jupiter is in its fall in Capricorn, so Jupiter

is likely to lose some of its kingly structure. (Jupiter was the planetary

king who made the rules for the other gods.)

Therese

March 24, 2008

Hi Therese,

I will take your advise as one who has gone through the " transition maze "

before and start with a good understanding of the planets first.

Regarding this topic, I know that traditionally Jyotish astrologers

(Jyotishis?) do not use the outer planets. What is the current practice with

regard to the outer planets. Do you use them all the times or only in certain

applications? Is this consistent across the Jyotish community?

Thanks for helping me learn,