Sidereal Delineations

[Guest guest]

From all I have read I favour using the Sidereal Zodiac and have a

strong preference for the Whole Sign Houses system.

 

To me, reaching that point was the easy part. Now I am faced with

the question of just which meanings to ascribe to the signs and

planets etc in those signs. Although I have a reasonably extensive

library (300 related) most books seem to be based upon the tropical

zodiac and one of the more popular house systems. Since there is a

difference of about 25 degrees (for my natal chart) the question

arises, which meaning definitions should be used, since the two

systems will produce different sun signs etc. If at all possible I

would like to stay with Western Astrology and not be forced to take

the Vedic route.

 

Is my quandary imagined or real? Perhaps it is my lack of learning

and comprehension of the topic which brings me to this.

Interpretations using the Sidereal Zodiac and the published

information concerning signs etc does, in many cases provide results

more believable than those made using the Tropical Zodiac. Fagan

does write of this at the beginning of " Astrological Origins " in

Excursus A. Does this mean one should continue to use the

delineations for the Tropical Sign and not that derived for the

Sidereal Sign?

 

Shaun

(One Quizzical Astrologer)

[Guest guest]

Shaun, for years (30+) I had not used signs at all, having found them

to be unreliable in my early astrological years. I have used no-signs

without any apparent difficulties, actually finding that I have

simplified much of my astrological practice and making more easy to

practice and to achieve good results.

 

Recently, due to the urgings of Therese Hamilton and others, I have

been reviewing the writings of Fagan, Bradley and Gleadow. I have

been copying, rewriting and changing all of those sources in order to

end up with my view of Sidereal signs which I can then test.

 

A few issues seam evident which may make it easy to differentiate the

sign meanings between the two zodiacs.

 

FIRST, sidereal zodiac sign meanings are based upon the ruling planet

and exalted planet -- and by extension, by omission of detriment and

fall planets.

 

SECOND, the writings of Fagan, et al, often include little

contradictory-to-tropical-zodiac-claims tibits that highlight the

tropical-meaning inconsistencies. These have crept into tropical

system thinking over the centuries since around 212 or 220 AD when the

two zodiacs were in agreement.

 

THIRD, the primary stars seem to have been the first basis of applying

sky meanings to the affairs of men. Those meanings spread to the

constellation patterns they were seen as being part of. These seem to

have had an influence of the development and filling-out of star myths

and archetypal meanings that were adopted so long ago and only

recently (in the time of the Greeks following Alexander-the-great's

great disruption of countries, cultures and records) turned into a

distorted practice that carried through the dark ages and into the

modern era.

 

If you want to converse more about this, we can do it here for others

to share in or off-site. I expect it will be a few weeks yet before I

have my first-pass writings complete, but I would be happy to share

for others to comment upon. Dave

 

, " Shaun " <smcpastrologe

wrote:

>

> From all I have read I favour using the Sidereal Zodiac and have a

> strong preference for the Whole Sign Houses system.

>

> To me, reaching that point was the easy part. Now I am faced with

> the question of just which meanings to ascribe to the signs and

> planets etc in those signs. Although I have a reasonably extensive

> library (300 related) most books seem to be based upon the tropical

> zodiac and one of the more popular house systems. Since there is a

> difference of about 25 degrees (for my natal chart) the question

> arises, which meaning definitions should be used, since the two

> systems will produce different sun signs etc. If at all possible I

> would like to stay with Western Astrology and not be forced to take

> the Vedic route.

>

> Is my quandary imagined or real? Perhaps it is my lack of learning

> and comprehension of the topic which brings me to this.

> Interpretations using the Sidereal Zodiac and the published

> information concerning signs etc does, in many cases provide results

> more believable than those made using the Tropical Zodiac. Fagan

> does write of this at the beginning of " Astrological Origins " in

> Excursus A. Does this mean one should continue to use the

> delineations for the Tropical Sign and not that derived for the

> Sidereal Sign?

>

> Shaun

> (One Quizzical Astrologer)

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave

 

I would be interested in reading you thoughts too.

Linccoln

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

David Monroe <dadsnook

 

Friday, November 7, 2008 10:12:12 AM

Re: Sidereal Delineations

 

 

Shaun, for years (30+) I had not used signs at all, having found them

to be unreliable in my early astrological years. I have used no-signs

without any apparent difficulties, actually finding that I have

simplified much of my astrological practice and making more easy to

practice and to achieve good results.

 

Recently, due to the urgings of Therese Hamilton and others, I have

been reviewing the writings of Fagan, Bradley and Gleadow. I have

been copying, rewriting and changing all of those sources in order to

end up with my view of Sidereal signs which I can then test.

 

A few issues seam evident which may make it easy to differentiate the

sign meanings between the two zodiacs.

 

FIRST, sidereal zodiac sign meanings are based upon the ruling planet

and exalted planet -- and by extension, by omission of detriment and

fall planets.

 

SECOND, the writings of Fagan, et al, often include little

contradictory- to-tropical- zodiac-claims tibits that highlight the

tropical-meaning inconsistencies. These have crept into tropical

system thinking over the centuries since around 212 or 220 AD when the

two zodiacs were in agreement.

 

THIRD, the primary stars seem to have been the first basis of applying

sky meanings to the affairs of men. Those meanings spread to the

constellation patterns they were seen as being part of. These seem to

have had an influence of the development and filling-out of star myths

and archetypal meanings that were adopted so long ago and only

recently (in the time of the Greeks following Alexander-the- great's

great disruption of countries, cultures and records) turned into a

distorted practice that carried through the dark ages and into the

modern era.

 

If you want to converse more about this, we can do it here for others

to share in or off-site. I expect it will be a few weeks yet before I

have my first-pass writings complete, but I would be happy to share

for others to comment upon. Dave

 

, " Shaun " <smcpastrologe@ ...>

wrote:

>

> From all I have read I favour using the Sidereal Zodiac and have a

> strong preference for the Whole Sign Houses system.

>

> To me, reaching that point was the easy part. Now I am faced with

> the question of just which meanings to ascribe to the signs and

> planets etc in those signs. Although I have a reasonably extensive

> library (300 related) most books seem to be based upon the tropical

> zodiac and one of the more popular house systems. Since there is a

> difference of about 25 degrees (for my natal chart) the question

> arises, which meaning definitions should be used, since the two

> systems will produce different sun signs etc. If at all possible I

> would like to stay with Western Astrology and not be forced to take

> the Vedic route.

>

> Is my quandary imagined or real? Perhaps it is my lack of learning

> and comprehension of the topic which brings me to this.

> Interpretations using the Sidereal Zodiac and the published

> information concerning signs etc does, in many cases provide results

> more believable than those made using the Tropical Zodiac. Fagan

> does write of this at the beginning of " Astrological Origins " in

> Excursus A. Does this mean one should continue to use the

> delineations for the Tropical Sign and not that derived for the

> Sidereal Sign?

>

> Shaun

> (One Quizzical Astrologer)

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 10:37 PM 11/6/08 -0000, Shaun wrote:

>From all I have read I favour using the Sidereal Zodiac and have a

>strong preference for the Whole Sign Houses system.

>

>To me, reaching that point was the easy part. Now I am faced with

>the question of just which meanings to ascribe to the signs and

>planets etc in those signs....

>

 

David Monroe wrote:

FIRST, sidereal zodiac sign meanings are based upon the ruling planet

and exalted planet -- and by extension, by omission of detriment and

fall planets.

(...)

If you want to converse more about this, we can do it here for others

to share in or off-site. I expect it will be a few weeks yet before I

have my first-pass writings complete, but I would be happy to share

for others to comment upon.

--------------------------------

 

Hi Dave and Shaun,

 

Thanks, Dave, for your reply to Shaun. It would indeed make an interesting

group discussion when your first sign writings are complete. I believe your

comments under " FIRST " are one of the main keys to the sidereal signs.

Fagan and friends made a beginning, but they too fell into the trap of

assigning too many psychological meanings to the signs when those meanings

belong to the planes. I've been pondering and writing about the sidereal

signs for some years:

 

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

 

It's most helpful to think of the signs in terms of energies rather than

specific traits. Shaun, please see the introductory writings on the site

above.

 

Perhaps, Dave, by the time you have your first sign thoughts complete on

this forum, I'll have finished placing the 12 signs on my web site. The

door will then be open for an exciting and enlightening discussion.

 

Best,

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese, Shaun, Lincoln and list.

 

I'm following a format to give me some consistency in my thoughts and

notes as I work out each sign meaning. I'm using material from Fagan

and Ebertin and other sources, as well as my own thoughts.

** Sign: Ruling planet, exalted planet and degree position, detriment

and fall planet.

** Fixed Stars in that sign: List by name, longitude, declination and

meaning for each star listed.

** Sun Sign Meanings expressed as planet attributes. Ruling star

meanings and exalted planet meanings. No extended commentaries.

** Moon Sign Meanings expressed as planet attributes.

** Typical areas of endeavor.

** Famous people of this sign.

** Contradictions between Tropical and Sidereal meanings.

 

Now, I'm not sure how I'll ultimately present my sign meanings or

whether I'll keep the above format. Right now, this approach makes

sure that I follow the same path for each sign and consider each

informational area.

 

I formulated this approach on the premise that originally the stars

were what was followed in the sky and related to the affairs of men.

This seems to have been extended to the star patterns or

constellations. The planet myths and sign myths must have been linked

by the astrologers/priests of those times. What might have been a

breakthrough for my understanding was a claim made by Jeff Mayo of the

Faculty for Astrological Studies in London. Jeff claimed that the Sun

was an " integrative " factor. When realizing that I was able to

suddenly accept the nature of sun-sign astrology rather than wondering

how signs could have their own independent meanings.

 

So, I'm exploring how/if the stars, using the meanings given in the

books (Ebertin-Hoffmann's Fixed Stars and their interpretation), have

any actual relation to the accepted sign meanings. They don't seem to

have that link, at this point. Anyways, I've got a ways to go before

I put together a grand definition that will suit me, but I will have a

starting definition of the signs in a few weeks. Dave

[Guest guest]

At 04:53 AM 11/9/08 -0000, you wrote:

>Therese, Shaun, Lincoln and list.

>

>I'm following a format to give me some consistency in my thoughts and

>notes as I work out each sign meaning. I'm using material from Fagan

>and Ebertin and other sources, as well as my own thoughts...

-----------------------

 

Extremely comprehensive, Dave!! I think it might take more than a few weeks...

 

I haven't found much correlation with individual stars and the signs,

though they may relate to specific degrees, and the constellations

themselves do seem to relate to the 27 lunar mansions. What has stalled me

on putting the signs on the internet is that some traits or energies do

seem to be related only to individual mansions. I think I'm going to begin

with only the basics--ruling and exalted planets. I mean I'll excerpt that

material for my site from what I've already written.

 

Anyhow, we'll see what you come up with!

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

My initial thoughts, as I list and define the Fixed Stars for each

sign, is that the individual star-meanings given in texts does not

seem to relate well to the sign's meanings. It may be that the work

Fagan and others did with these stars is highly valid relative to when

they rose at sunset. This work validated two things; A) the star

rising signaled an important date for that country (Egypt, for

example) in terms of Nile flooding or harvesting, and B) those

meanings (other than the timing factor) may have been " localized. "

By " localized " I mean that that form of astrological meaning might

have applied only to that area of the world. Virgo and harvesting in

Egypt wouldn't be applicable to Syria or India, for instance where

seasonal variations were quite different.

 

So, all in all, this is an interesting experience. I can't accept an

localized astrology, so the linking of the stars to the sign meanings

might be implausible. If so, the question becomes, " How did the signs

or star patterns evolve? " Dave

[Guest guest]

At 04:28 PM 11/9/08 -0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

I can't accept an

>localized astrology, so the linking of the stars to the sign meanings

>might be implausible. If so, the question becomes, " How did the signs

>or star patterns evolve? "

-------------------------

 

Hi Dave,

 

I only have a few minutes this morning, so a quick reply:

 

The constellations that have come to us from ancient times are separate

entities and have a separate history from the equal 30 degree signs. This

is why western siderealists created confusion when they termed the sidereal

signs 'constellations.' Because the constellational forms have been

different in different cultures, this is another whole area of study and

brings up the quesiton of evolution vs. revelation.

 

Probably the best book on the constellational patters in different cultures

is Julius D.W. Staal's THE NEW PATTERNS IN THE SKY (1988).

 

When I wrote my initial analysis of sidereal signs some years ago, I began

with the familiar energy patterns used in tropical astrology (sign trigons

and oppositions), but changed these to fit the sidereal zodiac.

 

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

 

Trigons (dividing the zodiac into four sets of trines) go back to

Mesopotamia's sidereal zodiac, but the qualities (cardinal, fixed and

mutable) are completely irrelevent to the sidereal zodiac because they are

specifically related to the passage of the sun marking the length of the

seasons. I've collected material on this and will soon have a short article.

 

More on all this later. I'm very happy that the zodiac has again come up

for discussion.

 

Therese