Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George Bush

[Guest guest]

Everyone sees the US President, G.W. Bush, on television and has taken

in his personality and character over the past eight years. I have

chosen his chart to start this comparison and discussion relative to

the two zodiacs.

 

**********

 

Tropical & Sidereal Zodiac Study: Comparing Ascendant and Sun Signs

George W. Bush

David Monroe, aka dadsnook. January, 2009

 

Tropical Sign, Sidereal Sign, Astrological aspects to either

Degree, House Degree, House the Ascendant or the Sun

 

Asc. Leo, 07:07 Cancer, 13:07 ME conj. PL and ASC. 3d.

 

Sun Cancer, 13:46 Gemini, 19:47 ASC. sextile NE. 1+d.

 

Comments on personality (Ascendant) and character (Sun)

 

George W. Bush presents himself as patriotic (Moon) as befits a

President, states his principles (Jupiter) and then maintains (Saturn)

his position. He smirks and smiles (Mercury), is somewhat facially

mobile (Mars and Mercury). He often claims that his faith (Jupiter

and Sun) guides (Jupiter) his decisions. He has been described as

being stubborn (Sun, Uranus, Pluto, Mars) and committed (Pluto) to his

close advisors (Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus). He has also

been accused of being simplistic (Saturn) and often mis-speaks with

bluntness (Mars, Sun, Uranus).

 

Many see the President as being deceptive (Neptune) in his spoken

words (Mercury) versus his actual directions (Sun, Saturn). Others

view Bush's policies and actions (Mars) as being reckless and hasty

(Mars), lacking a depth of understanding (Jupiter, Mercury, Sun).

Economical (Saturn) approaches are chosen in war (forces too small for

the job) and programs (underfunding or low funding).

 

Chart aspects directly impacting the Ascendant and Sun

 

Mercury (Cancer 15:50) and Pluto (Cancer 16:35) conjunct the Ascendant

(Cancer 13:07) in the Sidereal chart. This provides him with a

" persuasive communication " tool, at least in his mind. He often

restates his points to make sure that they are recognized. The

Ascendant degree sextiles Neptune (Virgo 11:57), setting up a link to

crowds and the ability to communicate a vision.

 

Sun (Gemini 19:47) squares Moon (Virgo 22:43), giving him very much an

" activist " nature in terms of his beliefs and the reactions of others

to those beliefs (How dare you doubt or question what I say).

 

Sidereal or Tropical expression

 

The SIDEREAL argument would note the patriotic and sensitive Cancer

personality, and the persuasive speaking-from-the-heart approach that

Bush takes in his speeches. The Gemini Sun would be seen as fitting

with his superficial manner (as seen by some, many).

 

The TROPICAL argument would point to the Cancer Sun as befitting his

patriotic and sensitive-to-criticism nature. This, coupled with the

Leo Ascendant, would point to his self-assurance and

I'm-in-charge-so-I'm-right-in-all-things approach to his presidency.

 

CONCLUSION: Based on the Sun and Ascendant, plus aspect-patterns to

these two factors, the case can be made for either zodiac application.

Dave.

[Guest guest]

That is the part that puts me off using sidereal; the fact that either/or works.

There

really should be a clear difference should there not?

 

Morgana

 

 

 

 

 

On

Behalf Of David Monroe

January-09-09 5:25 AM

 

Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George Bush

 

 

 

Sidereal or Tropical expression

 

 

 

CONCLUSION: Based on the Sun and Ascendant, plus aspect-patterns to

these two factors, the case can be made for either zodiac application.

Dave.

 

 

 

 

 

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1882 - Release 08/01/2009 8:13

AM

 

 

 

 

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1884 - Release 09/01/2009 8:38

AM

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 08:29 AM 1/9/09 -0800, Morgana wrote:

>That is the part that puts me off using sidereal; the fact that either/or

works. There

>really should be a clear difference should there not?

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

 

Hi Dave and Morgana,

 

*IF* sidereal signs are the same as tropical, one sign back (that is, for

example, if sidereal Aries displays the traits of tropical Taurus), then

only looking at sign traits presents a major problem, as nothing can be

solved about the zodiacs.

 

If, however, we view sign traits as related to the mythologies of the

rulers and exalted planets, we can perhaps come to some conclusions. This

is what I've been working on while tightening up my sign definitions. Once

I began re-typing my old sign articles, I realized that it was necessary to

pull out key concepts and at least temporarily discard the longer-winded

descriptions. Actully 'cutting out' material take smore effort than keeping

the many words I initially wrote. This is causing the delay in posting my

signs notes on my web site. Only the first three signs are completed from a

few years ago.

 

I've taken a somewhat different approach than Dave in choosing charts that

supposedly express the traits of signs. I've only taken charts with

stelliums in a sign aspecting the ascendant from the 10th or planets in

signs near the ascendant.

 

As just one example of what this is turning up, for sidereal Cancer both

areas (1st and 10th) showed the highest totals for actors and actressed,

politicians, and sports people. What can we learn from this? Sidereal

Cancer, being ruled by the Moon and the exaltation sign of Jupiter, likes

the reflected (Moon) attention of others, and is comfortable 'playing the

house' before the public. This is not the traditional symbolism of the

tropical home loving Cancer.

 

Rupert Gleadow called sidereal Cancer " The consummate politician. " If these

stelliums are in tropical Leo, then the question becomes: " Are these trait

of loving the limelight and basking in the attention of others lunar or

solar? " This is why I began my discussion of the sidereal zodiac with

symbolism related to the Sun and Moon. (Edgar Cayce placed love of the home

with Venus, and for the Moon simply mentioned 'change.')

 

Because of the many factors in a horoscope, I think it's extremely

difficult to get a fix on signs unless a major stellium dominates the

chart. Perhaps we'll gain the most by discussing one sign at a time in the

context of a number of charts with known birth times sith stelliums in a

particular sign.

 

I'd recommend reading 'Chiria's Notebook' on my website under 'Additional

Contributions to this Site.' Chiria has an excellent eye for observation,

and in simple and plain terms has captured many of the main traits of

sidereal signs. She's only posted Aries through Virgo, however. I'll

encourage her to finish the zodiac.

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

 

Dave, I'll respond specifically to your post later today when I have more

time. Thanks for taking up the subject of sidereal signs.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Dear Therese,

 

Thank you for your reply. Yes it makes sense too and I will go and re-read your

three

signs. In fact I may have them in my notes under my file on Sidereal Astrology.

Certainly

I am not satisfied with Tropical descriptions either and I would like to pursue

study into

this. Time too seems to be very short these days for us all. Now that I am

working for

the past year, long ten hour days, and just falling into bed at night, only to

do it all

again the next day, time really is hard to find so I understand too.

 

 

 

I will go look for Chiria’s notebook this upcoming weekend when I actually have

two days

off together.

 

 

 

Morgana

 

 

 

 

 

On

Behalf Of Therese Hamilton

January-09-09 9:15 AM

 

RE: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George Bush

 

 

 

At 08:29 AM 1/9/09 -0800, Morgana wrote:

>That is the part that puts me off using sidereal; the fact that either/or

works. There

>really should be a clear difference should there not?

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

 

Hi Dave and Morgana,

 

*IF* sidereal signs are the same as tropical, one sign back (that is, for

example, if sidereal Aries displays the traits of tropical Taurus), then

only looking at sign traits presents a major problem, as nothing can be

solved about the zodiacs.

 

If, however, we view sign traits as related to the mythologies of the

rulers and exalted planets, we can perhaps come to some conclusions. This

is what I've been working on while tightening up my sign definitions. Once

I began re-typing my old sign articles, I realized that it was necessary to

pull out key concepts and at least temporarily discard the longer-winded

descriptions. Actully 'cutting out' material take smore effort than keeping

the many words I initially wrote. This is causing the delay in posting my

signs notes on my web site. Only the first three signs are completed from a

few years ago.

I'd recommend reading 'Chiria's Notebook' on my website under 'Additional

Contributions to this Site.' Chiria has an excellent eye for observation,

and in simple and plain terms has captured many of the main traits of

sidereal signs. She's only posted Aries through Virgo, however. I'll

encourage her to finish the zodiac.

HYPERLINK

" http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm " http://users.-snowcrest.-net/\

sunrise/-L

ostZodiac.-htm

 

Dave, I'll respond specifically to your post later today when I have more

time. Thanks for taking up the subject of sidereal signs.

 

Therese

 

 

 

.._,___

 

 

 

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1884 - Release 09/01/2009 8:38

AM

 

 

 

 

Checked by AVG.

Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1884 - Release 09/01/2009 8:38

AM

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 01:24 PM 1/9/09 -0000, Dave wrote:

>Everyone sees the US President, G.W. Bush, on television and has taken

>in his personality and character over the past eight years. I have

>chosen his chart to start this comparison and discussion relative to

>the two zodiacs.

>**********

>(...)

>Comments on personality (Ascendant) and character (Sun)

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

 

Hi Dave,

 

We may have a problem here at the onset: assuming that the ascendant is

the personality and the Sun is character. Below you have described many of

Bush's traits, but they're not especially linked to zodiac signs. You've

given a good planetary picture, but it's not clear to me how a large part

of this picture relates to signs. The sign traits that you mention near the

end don't have a clear basis in theory, and are mostly based on the

tropical understanding of the signs. (Tropical astrology in general doesn't

discuss a theoretical foundation for sign meanings.)

 

As I see it, there are too many traits and ideas regarding Bush to get a

clear picture. Aspects bring in additional data, and I don't see how zodiac

signs can be isolated from planetary influence. Also when planets are in

signs adjacent to each other as Bush's Sun and ascendant stellium, this

also fuzzes the zodiac picture. This happens often with tropical to

sidereal coversion, and it adds to the confusion. In your notes below

you've mentioned many traits related to planets that may or may not belong

to those planets. This is a major problem with astrology in general.

 

Can we trust today's astrological writings from various authors? Probably

not or only in a very minimal sense. (Except that Robert Hand has taken an

honest look at astrology's questions.) Most likely we have to start with a

bare bones foundation and slowly build from there.

 

Yes, I agree with your conclusion using astrology in the way you've used

it: A case can easily be made for either zodiac.

 

Therese

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

 

You wrote:

 

>George W. Bush presents himself as patriotic (Moon) as befits a

>President, states his principles (Jupiter) and then maintains (Saturn)

>his position. He smirks and smiles (Mercury), is somewhat facially

>mobile (Mars and Mercury). He often claims that his faith (Jupiter

>and Sun) guides (Jupiter) his decisions. He has been described as

>being stubborn (Sun, Uranus, Pluto, Mars) and committed (Pluto) to his

>close advisors (Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus). He has also

>been accused of being simplistic (Saturn) and often mis-speaks with

>bluntness (Mars, Sun, Uranus).

>

>Many see the President as being deceptive (Neptune) in his spoken

>words (Mercury) versus his actual directions (Sun, Saturn). Others

>view Bush's policies and actions (Mars) as being reckless and hasty

>(Mars), lacking a depth of understanding (Jupiter, Mercury, Sun).

>Economical (Saturn) approaches are chosen in war (forces too small for

>the job) and programs (underfunding or low funding).

>

>Chart aspects directly impacting the Ascendant and Sun

>

>Mercury (Cancer 15:50) and Pluto (Cancer 16:35) conjunct the Ascendant

>(Cancer 13:07) in the Sidereal chart. This provides him with a

> " persuasive communication " tool, at least in his mind. He often

>restates his points to make sure that they are recognized. The

>Ascendant degree sextiles Neptune (Virgo 11:57), setting up a link to

>crowds and the ability to communicate a vision.

>

>Sun (Gemini 19:47) squares Moon (Virgo 22:43), giving him very much an

> " activist " nature in terms of his beliefs and the reactions of others

>to those beliefs (How dare you doubt or question what I say).

>

>Sidereal or Tropical expression

>

>The SIDEREAL argument would note the patriotic and sensitive Cancer

>personality, and the persuasive speaking-from-the-heart approach that

>Bush takes in his speeches. The Gemini Sun would be seen as fitting

>with his superficial manner (as seen by some, many).

>

>The TROPICAL argument would point to the Cancer Sun as befitting his

>patriotic and sensitive-to-criticism nature. This, coupled with the

>Leo Ascendant, would point to his self-assurance and

>I'm-in-charge-so-I'm-right-in-all-things approach to his presidency.

>

>CONCLUSION: Based on the Sun and Ascendant, plus aspect-patterns to

>these two factors, the case can be made for either zodiac application.

>Dave.

[Guest guest]

Therese wrote: We may have a problem here at the onset: assuming that

the ascendant is the personality and the Sun is character. Below you

have described many of Bush's traits, but they're not especially

linked to zodiac signs. You've given a good planetary picture, but

it's not clear to me how a large part of this picture relates to signs.

 

REPLY:

Perhaps it would be helpful to post the charts, tropical and sidereal.

But first, I feel we need to make a distinction in how one may

approach the definition of signs.

A) Sidereal Cancer (Bush's Ascendant sign) should indicate the same

sign meanings as Tropical Leo. This approach is based on one sector of

space, as seen from Earth, having only one set of cohesive meanings.

Therefore, the resulting set of meanings as expressed by the subject

(Bush, in this case) is either one sign or the other.

B) Sidereal Cancer, as a sign, has typical " Cancer " meanings.

Tropical Leo, as a sign, has typical " Leo " meanings. Does the subject

(Bush) express Cancer or Leo influence in his Ascendant? This

approach assumes that one zodiac will prove to be demonstratively

correct, the other being inappropriate.

 

Is Bush " Leo " in his expression and actions, or is he " Cancer " ? Is

his core nature, views on life, and character more " Gemini " or more

" Cancer. " In George Bush's case, the planets near the Ascendant and

the link between the Sun and Moon-Jupiter complicates these simple

questions. Looking at the Sun and at the Ascendant is an attempt to

keep this form of exploration simple and focused.

 

*******

 

Therese said: The sign traits that you mention near the end don't have

a clear basis in theory, and are mostly based on the tropical

understanding of the signs. (Tropical astrology in general doesn't

discuss a theoretical foundation for sign meanings.)

>

REPLY: Perhaps I should post my Gemini, Cancer and Leo sidereal sign

writings so that everyone can see how I attempted to define these

three signs.

 

****

 

Therese said: As I see it, there are too many traits and ideas

regarding Bush to get a clear picture. Aspects bring in additional

data, and I don't see how zodiac signs can be isolated from planetary

influence. Also when planets are in signs adjacent to each other as

Bush's Sun and ascendant stellium, this also fuzzes the zodiac

picture. This happens often with tropical to sidereal conversion, and

it adds to the confusion.

 

REPLY: All of this is true. I'll go thru the twenty-or-so test charts

I've run and try to avoid those conditions you noted.

 

Dave

[Guest guest]

At 02:40 AM 1/10/09 -0000, Dave wrote:

>Perhaps it would be helpful to post the charts, tropical and sidereal.

>But first, I feel we need to make a distinction in how one may

>approach the definition of signs.

 

Yes, and we haven't done this yet. We need to begin with a theory of why a

sign would express in a certain way. I've done this already, but am trying

to put the concepts in capsule form for easy understanding. Maybe you've

done this with your signs which you haven't posted yet?

 

> Does the subject

>(Bush) express Cancer or Leo influence in his Ascendant? This

>approach assumes that one zodiac will prove to be demonstratively

>correct, the other being inappropriate.

 

The problem with the Bush chart is that the planetary influence on the

ascendant would be stronger than the sign influence. Wouldn't it make more

sense to choose charts without the complicating influence of planets near

the ascendant? Would Sun on the ascendant show us a more clear picture?

Then the Moon is always important, and the aspects....that's why I'm

presently choosing stelliums.

 

>Is Bush " Leo " in his expression and actions, or is he " Cancer " ? Is

>his core nature, views on life, and character more " Gemini " or more

> " Cancer. "

 

It may be that core views belong to the planets, and the signs (as Cayce

says) mainly relate to the activities a person engages in. I'm puzzled by

this. I have my Sun and Moon in a single sign, and a past friend has her

Sun and Moon in the same sign, close to mine by degree. We were so

different in almost every way that we ceased being friends. I know that my

view of life is linked to Venus-Neptune (square my ascendant) whereas the

other lady had a strong Saturn-Mars influence.

 

In George Bush's case, the planets near the Ascendant and

>the link between the Sun and Moon-Jupiter complicates these simple

>questions.

 

Yes, and that's a good reason to suspect that his chart is too complex for

this kind of study. Also, do we really know George Bush?? It's difficult to

say. All we can judge is what we see of his behavior and policies. We know

he has trouble expressing concepts in words--which would be linked to

Mercury. There are many jokes about his 'bushisms'. We know he likes to be

on his Texas ranch. Well, if Cancer rules the home (I'm not sure it

does...), then that would be Cancer.

 

>REPLY: Perhaps I should post my Gemini, Cancer and Leo sidereal sign

>writings so that everyone can see how I attempted to define these

>three signs.

 

I think we'd like to see all 12 signs posted in the file section. I think

you and I are taking very different appraoches, so there's no worry that

my signs aren't posted first. My appraoch has been heavily

mythological--that is, for example, Taurus and Libra both express different

sides of Venus in mythology. Taurus is the lighter, more fun loving side

linked to nature, and Libra is the heavier responsibility of marriage and

all that entails. (Libra is also the exaltation of Saturn.) Then I also use

the symbolism of the constellations to help define signs, but not as

tropical astrology uses them.

 

>Therese said: As I see it, there are too many traits and ideas

>regarding Bush to get a clear picture. Aspects bring in additional

>data, and I don't see how zodiac signs can be isolated from planetary

>influence. Also when planets are in signs adjacent to each other as

>Bush's Sun and ascendant stellium, this also fuzzes the zodiac

>picture. This happens often with tropical to sidereal conversion, and

>it adds to the confusion.

>

>REPLY: All of this is true. I'll go thru the twenty-or-so test charts

>I've run and try to avoid those conditions you noted.

 

It takes some searching to find charts that aren't too complex. But first

we really have to lay out the theoretical foundation of signs. WHY does a

particular sign express in a certain way? Even if we follow the tropical

concepts of cardinal, fixed and mutable, we'll find these aren't constant

in all signs. Sure, tropical Taurus seems fixed, but why isn't Aquarius

equally fixed in expression? It tends to be just the opposite. Thus,

there's something wrong with the theory if it doesn't work in a constant

manner. Why doesn't tropical Taurus resemble Venus and/or the Moon?

 

Theories may fall apart in practice, but we still have to begin with

theories of why signs express the way they do.

 

It's all very complicated...

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese wrote:

 

> As just one example of what this is turning up, for sidereal Cancer both

> areas (1st and 10th) showed the highest totals for actors and actressed,

> politicians, and sports people. What can we learn from this? Sidereal

> Cancer, being ruled by the Moon and the exaltation sign of Jupiter, likes

> the reflected (Moon) attention of others, and is comfortable 'playing the

> house' before the public. This is not the traditional symbolism of the

> tropical home loving Cancer.

 

Sari:

 

We must be very careful when we're thinking what is the " traditional

symbolism " of a sign. " Home loving " and " patriotic " are not traditional

interpretations for Cancer but modern ones, and they derive probably mainly

from associating Cancer with the 4th house. Vettius Valens wrote about

Cancer in the 2nd century:

 

" Cancer is the house of the Moon, feminine, tropical, Horoskopos of the

cosmos, slavish, descending, mute, watery, good, changeable, public,

popular, civil, prolific, amphibious.

 

Those so born, then, will be fond of repute, popular, changeable,

theatrical, cheerful, fond of pleasure and entertaining, public, inconstant

in knowledge, saying one thing but thinking another, those who do not remain

with one activity or two for long, who end up wandering and sojourning

abroad. "

 

Note especially the words " public " , " popular " , " fond of repute " ,

" theatrical " , " cheerful " , " fond of pleasure and entertaining " , " who end up

wandering and sojourning abroad " . These words fit much better today for

tropical Leo than for tropical Cancer! So it would seem that Valens is

actually talking about sidereal Cancer (which has many of the traits

associated with today's tropical Leo).

 

Maybe the best book I've read about planetary symbolism (and that made me

convinced about the validity of the sidereal zodiac again) is Planet Narnia

by Michael Ward which I read at Christmas. Ward has discovered that each of

the seven Narnia books by C. S. Lewis, a scholar of medieval literature, is

designed to manifest one of the seven visible planets. I read Ward's book

together with the Narnia books which were my favourites when I was a child,

and those books gave me the most clearest and consistent feeling of the

nature of the planets I've ever got anywhere. I recommend those books warmly

to anyone who wants to get a grip about the nature of the planets as they

were intended in the old texts.

 

Traditionally the Moon signifies sleep, a state of foggy thinking and

physical comforts, but what really gives sidereal Cancer love of pomp and

glamour is its exaltation ruler Jupiter, the mighty, right-minded and

generous king. What comes to G. W. Bush and his Cancer ascendant, I'm

thinking about the scene in Michael Moore's movie 9/11 where Bush gets to

know about the terrorism attack. Minutes go... and they go... and they go...

and Bush is thinking... and thinking... this is not Fiery or Solar action or

temperament, but rather Lunar and Watery. Another point that comes to mind

is Bush's rising nakshatra or lunar mansion, Pushya. It's a mansion ruled by

Saturn and has usually quite a conservative flavour.

 

Third point that I find personally quite revealing is how the ruler of

Cancer, the Moon, conjoins Jupiter near the IC which means both planets are

the 4th Sripati (unequal bhava) house. In Western traditional astrology the

4th house represents the parents and especially the father, and we all know

what an important role Bush's father has played in his life. Another meaning

for the 4th house is " hidden action " or " hidden or underground things " , and

probably that aspect characterizes Bush's administration quite well too.

 

Tropically the ruler of Bush's ascendant would be the Sun in the 12th

house - spirited and idealistic albeit possibly sometimes naive and simple

energy in the house of self-undoing, scandals, tabloid publicity and popular

culture (the two latter meanings come from my own statistical studies). That

would mean that Bush's well-meaning though careless actions would have ended

up in scandalous publicity (the 12th house is above the horizon, it's in the

visible side of the chart). I don't find that interpretation entirely

fitting.

 

Best, Sari

[Guest guest]

Therese wrote:

 

We know

> he has trouble expressing concepts in words--which would be linked to

> Mercury. There are many jokes about his 'bushisms'.

 

Sari:

 

It's funny how Bush is know for his " bushisms " and how he has Mercury, the

planet signifying words and communication on his ascendant. What makes this

Mercury so confused? It's probably the Lunar influence under which Mercury

is. The Moon makes things it touches foggy and kind of numbed.

 

In George Orwell's novel " 1984 " people are offered drink called Soma (and

you know that Soma is another name for the Moon in hindu mythology) which

makes them numbed and passive about their oppressed situation. Also in

Indian astrology the Moon is the enemy of Mercury because it confuses

Mercurian clarity. In Bush's sidereal chart the Moon and Mercury are in

mutual reception - Mercury is in Cancer and the Moon is in Virgo and so it

would seem that it's this interaction between Mercury and the Moon which

results in these " bushisms " .

 

Using Fagan-Bradley the MC is only 14 minutes in the Aries side. 53 seconds

backwards and Jupiter becomes the ruler of the MC, which would be quite a

tempting option. The Moon and Jupiter are in the sign of Mercury (speech),

Jupiter is in its detrment there, and Mercury is right on the ascendant.

Therefore we have Mercury (the speech), Moon (the ascendant ruler signifying

foggy state of mind) and Jupiter (the MC ruler signifying one's fame) all

connected - therefore, " bushisms " .

 

Therese wrote:

 

We know he likes to be

> on his Texas ranch. Well, if Cancer rules the home (I'm not sure it

> does...), then that would be Cancer.

 

Sari:

 

Or it would be the 4th Sripati house where the Moon and Jupiter are. The 4th

house = one's roots and backround, also patriotism.

 

Best, Sari

[Guest guest]

Sari,

    When you use Fagan-Bradley, what house system do you use? I understand that

Mr. Fagan preferred Campanus. Do you prefer Fagan-Bradley over the Lahiri

in Jyotish?

 

Stephen

liberator_9

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Sari M <gerdapp

 

Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:07:52 AM

Re: Re: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George Bush

 

 

Therese wrote:

 

We know

> he has trouble expressing concepts in words--which would be linked to

> Mercury. There are many jokes about his 'bushisms'.

 

Sari:

 

It's funny how Bush is know for his " bushisms " and how he has Mercury, the

planet signifying words and communication on his ascendant. What makes this

Mercury so confused? It's probably the Lunar influence under which Mercury

is. The Moon makes things it touches foggy and kind of numbed.

 

In George Orwell's novel " 1984 " people are offered drink called Soma (and

you know that Soma is another name for the Moon in hindu mythology) which

makes them numbed and passive about their oppressed situation. Also in

Indian astrology the Moon is the enemy of Mercury because it confuses

Mercurian clarity. In Bush's sidereal chart the Moon and Mercury are in

mutual reception - Mercury is in Cancer and the Moon is in Virgo and so it

would seem that it's this interaction between Mercury and the Moon which

results in these " bushisms " .

 

Using Fagan-Bradley the MC is only 14 minutes in the Aries side. 53 seconds

backwards and Jupiter becomes the ruler of the MC, which would be quite a

tempting option. The Moon and Jupiter are in the sign of Mercury (speech),

Jupiter is in its detrment there, and Mercury is right on the ascendant.

Therefore we have Mercury (the speech), Moon (the ascendant ruler signifying

foggy state of mind) and Jupiter (the MC ruler signifying one's fame) all

connected - therefore, " bushisms " .

 

Therese wrote:

 

We know he likes to be

> on his Texas ranch. Well, if Cancer rules the home (I'm not sure it

> does...), then that would be Cancer.

 

Sari:

 

Or it would be the 4th Sripati house where the Moon and Jupiter are. The 4th

house = one's roots and backround, also patriotism.

 

Best, Sari

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Sari,

 

I just wanted to say again that your insights below are excellent. Velens'

horoscopes have been shown to be sidereal. It's something of a mystery that

astronomers apparently began using the tropical zodiac for measurement, but

astrologers (based on published horoscopes) continued with the sidereal for

several hundred years after Ptolemy.

 

As moderns, we tend to forget that the 4th house was always the father

until fairly recent times. The confusion has come with the association of

Cancer with the 4th house, as you mentioned. " Hidden action " certainly

describes the Bush administration, and that may well include the election

periods in 2000 and 2004.

 

I think what we're seeing here are types of action and expression rather

than depth psychology per se. This is probably a more true expression of

zodiac signs as well as the nakshatras/lunar mansions.

 

I have two very good examples of Cancer expression, but may not be able to

post the until tomorrow.

 

Therese

 

 

At 09:17 AM 1/10/09 +0200, Sari wrote:

>

>Traditionally the Moon signifies sleep, a state of foggy thinking and

>physical comforts, but what really gives sidereal Cancer love of pomp and

>glamour is its exaltation ruler Jupiter, the mighty, right-minded and

>generous king. What comes to G. W. Bush and his Cancer ascendant, I'm

>thinking about the scene in Michael Moore's movie 9/11 where Bush gets to

>know about the terrorism attack. Minutes go... and they go... and they go...

>and Bush is thinking... and thinking... this is not Fiery or Solar action or

>temperament, but rather Lunar and Watery. Another point that comes to mind

>is Bush's rising nakshatra or lunar mansion, Pushya. It's a mansion ruled by

>Saturn and has usually quite a conservative flavour.

>

>Third point that I find personally quite revealing is how the ruler of

>Cancer, the Moon, conjoins Jupiter near the IC which means both planets are

>the 4th Sripati (unequal bhava) house. In Western traditional astrology the

>4th house represents the parents and especially the father, and we all know

>what an important role Bush's father has played in his life. Another meaning

>for the 4th house is " hidden action " or " hidden or underground things " , and

>probably that aspect characterizes Bush's administration quite well too.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Stephen,

 

yes, I've started to prefer Fagan/Bradley also in jyotish. IMO it works well

with Vimsottari dasha sub-sub and sub-sub-sub periods.

 

Nowadays after a lot of studies I've ended up with Sripati (hindu bhava)

houses with Alcabitius cusps, which don't differ a lot from Porphyry.

Sripati as presented in the astrological programs is like Porphyry, but the

houses are located in both sides of the cusps so that the border between two

houses is in the midpoint of their cusps. G. W. Bush's chart is a great

example of how Sripati houses work, it would be quite difficult to find

interpretation for the Moon/Jupiter conjunction in the 3rd house.

 

Best, Sari

 

 

 

-

" Stephen Glaser " <liberator_9

 

Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:51 AM

Re: Re: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George

Bush

 

 

Sari,

When you use Fagan-Bradley, what house system do you use? I understand that

Mr. Fagan preferred Campanus. Do you prefer Fagan-Bradley over the Lahiri in

Jyotish?

 

Stephen

liberator_9

[Guest guest]

Hi Sari,

At astro.com, if one clicks onto the " Free Horoscopes " and then, " Extended Chart

Selection " , he/she could modify the chart to Fagan/Bradley and the house system

to Alcabitius. Is that what you are talking about, or do I need a special

programming for my computer to do what you are doing?

 

Stephenliberator_9

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Sari M <gerdapp

 

Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:42:38 AM

Re: Re: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George Bush

 

 

Hi Stephen,

 

yes, I've started to prefer Fagan/Bradley also in jyotish. IMO it works well

with Vimsottari dasha sub-sub and sub-sub-sub periods.

 

Nowadays after a lot of studies I've ended up with Sripati (hindu bhava)

houses with Alcabitius cusps, which don't differ a lot from Porphyry.

Sripati as presented in the astrological programs is like Porphyry, but the

houses are located in both sides of the cusps so that the border between two

houses is in the midpoint of their cusps. G. W. Bush's chart is a great

example of how Sripati houses work, it would be quite difficult to find

interpretation for the Moon/Jupiter conjunction in the 3rd house.

 

Best, Sari

 

-

" Stephen Glaser " <liberator_9@ >

<>

Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:51 AM

Re: Re: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George

Bush

 

Sari,

When you use Fagan-Bradley, what house system do you use? I understand that

Mr. Fagan preferred Campanus. Do you prefer Fagan-Bradley over the Lahiri in

Jyotish?

 

Stephen

liberator_9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

When it come to the fourth house, what does Hindu scriptures say? Does it relate

to the mother, father, or both? I understand that the way it is taught today, in

Jyotish, that the fourth house has to do with the mother and the ninth house is

the father's house. Could the ancients in Western civilization have accidently

transcribed the teachings of the fourth house incorrectly? If many different

astrologers are depending on a common source of info, one mistake could throw

off many.

 liberator_9

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Therese Hamilton <eastwest

 

Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:46:21 PM

RE: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George Bush

 

 

Hi Sari,

 

I just wanted to say again that your insights below are excellent. Velens'

horoscopes have been shown to be sidereal. It's something of a mystery that

astronomers apparently began using the tropical zodiac for measurement, but

astrologers (based on published horoscopes) continued with the sidereal for

several hundred years after Ptolemy.

 

As moderns, we tend to forget that the 4th house was always the father

until fairly recent times. The confusion has come with the association of

Cancer with the 4th house, as you mentioned. " Hidden action " certainly

describes the Bush administration, and that may well include the election

periods in 2000 and 2004.

 

I think what we're seeing here are types of action and expression rather

than depth psychology per se. This is probably a more true expression of

zodiac signs as well as the nakshatras/lunar mansions.

 

I have two very good examples of Cancer expression, but may not be able to

post the until tomorrow.

 

Therese

 

At 09:17 AM 1/10/09 +0200, Sari wrote:

>

>Traditionally the Moon signifies sleep, a state of foggy thinking and

>physical comforts, but what really gives sidereal Cancer love of pomp and

>glamour is its exaltation ruler Jupiter, the mighty, right-minded and

>generous king. What comes to G. W. Bush and his Cancer ascendant, I'm

>thinking about the scene in Michael Moore's movie 9/11 where Bush gets to

>know about the terrorism attack. Minutes go... and they go... and they go...

>and Bush is thinking... and thinking... this is not Fiery or Solar action or

>temperament, but rather Lunar and Watery. Another point that comes to mind

>is Bush's rising nakshatra or lunar mansion, Pushya. It's a mansion ruled by

>Saturn and has usually quite a conservative flavour.

>

>Third point that I find personally quite revealing is how the ruler of

>Cancer, the Moon, conjoins Jupiter near the IC which means both planets are

>the 4th Sripati (unequal bhava) house. In Western traditional astrology the

>4th house represents the parents and especially the father, and we all know

>what an important role Bush's father has played in his life. Another meaning

>for the 4th house is " hidden action " or " hidden or underground things " , and

>probably that aspect characterizes Bush's administration quite well too.

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Stephen wrote:

 

Could the ancients in Western civilization have accidently transcribed the

teachings of the fourth house incorrectly? If many different astrologers are

depending on a common source of info, one mistake could throw off many.

 

Sari:

 

Originally the 4th house signified simply parents and your backround. But

usually your social position stemmed from your fathers profession and

position, not from your mother's. Even today in the West our family names

derive usually from the father.

 

According to my experience the 4th house would seem to point more to the

father than to the mother. The 4th house is roots, backround, father land.

 

Therese wrote:

 

Michael was recognized by the Guinness Book in both 1999 and 2000 for being

the highest paid dancer, earning $1,600,000 per week and for having the

highest insurance premium placed on a dancer's legs at $40,000,000. (Mega

Jupiter influence here...)

 

Sari:

 

Also the 2nd house ruler Venus in her own sign with Fagan/Bradley on the

fortunate 9th house cusp. But the most important factor pertaining to the

wealth would seem to be the Part of Fortune (pointing especially to physical

wealth and well-being) right on the ascendant closely aspected by its ruler,

Mercury on the 11th cusp (another fortunate house pointing to hopes and

wishes and good luck). With Fagan/Bradley (if we have an exact birth time)

the MC is in Gemini and Mercury is its ruler. So, Flatley's fame and career

(the MC, its ruler Mercury) have enabled his wealth and well-being (PoF

right on the ascendant ruled and closely received by Mercury).

 

Best, Sari

[Guest guest]

I am not sure, Sari, My father, of blessed memory, was killed in a car crash a

couple of months before my ninth birthday. In Vedic Astrology, the Sun signifies

the father. The Sun rules my tenth house(Leo), but is located in my eighth

house, traditionally the house of death. Saturn, retrograde, ruling my fourth

house(Aquarius), is located in my first house(Scorpio). My mom was very

restrictive of me while growing up, and still tries to play authoritarian games

with me.

 

Blessings,

Stephen

liberator_9

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Sari M <gerdapp

 

Monday, January 12, 2009 6:58:09 AM

Re: RE: Sidereal & Tropical Zodiacs: George Bush

 

 

Stephen wrote:

 

Could the ancients in Western civilization have accidently transcribed the

teachings of the fourth house incorrectly? If many different astrologers are

depending on a common source of info, one mistake could throw off many.

 

Sari:

 

Originally the 4th house signified simply parents and your backround. But

usually your social position stemmed from your fathers profession and

position, not from your mother's. Even today in the West our family names

derive usually from the father.

 

According to my experience the 4th house would seem to point more to the

father than to the mother. The 4th house is roots, backround, father land.

 

Therese wrote:

 

Michael was recognized by the Guinness Book in both 1999 and 2000 for being

the highest paid dancer, earning $1,600,000 per week and for having the

highest insurance premium placed on a dancer's legs at $40,000,000. (Mega

Jupiter influence here...)

 

Sari:

 

Also the 2nd house ruler Venus in her own sign with Fagan/Bradley on the

fortunate 9th house cusp. But the most important factor pertaining to the

wealth would seem to be the Part of Fortune (pointing especially to physical

wealth and well-being) right on the ascendant closely aspected by its ruler,

Mercury on the 11th cusp (another fortunate house pointing to hopes and

wishes and good luck). With Fagan/Bradley (if we have an exact birth time)

the MC is in Gemini and Mercury is its ruler. So, Flatley's fame and career

(the MC, its ruler Mercury) have enabled his wealth and well-being (PoF

right on the ascendant ruled and closely received by Mercury).

 

Best, Sari