Guest guest Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Hi list, to get a better picture of how the signs actually work I've been lately doing a study where I compare sidereal Fagan/Bradley signs with their tropical equivalents. I went through the usual 130 samples from ADB, and looked which of them had often planets in sidereal signs versus tropical signs. I used the seven visible planets only. This might be a good way to find out how the sidereal signs actually work, and on which zodiac the planetary rulers show better. This might also settle the question dividing the sidereal community about the " leaking theory " , a stand adopted by Therese where the traits of original sidereal signs have actually " leaked " to the modern-day tropical signs: sidereal Aries is like tropical Taurus; sidereal Taurus is like tropical Gemini, etc.. The other view says simply that tropicalists are fatally and utterly wrong, and the sidereal signs actually give the results tropicalists think the tropical signs do. As Therese pointed out, this way of thinking prevails in modern books of so called Vedic astrology, for example in " Vedic Astrology Simply Put " by William R. Levacy, that offers the same cook book delineations found in every Western tropical beginner's book, only applied on the sidereal zodiac. There are a few guiding lines. One is the note that G.C. Sharma gives in his Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra edition on the page 52: " All the signs of cruel nature are male signs and those of beneficial nature are female signs. (---) If the sign of the Ascendant is of cruel nature and is a male one the native will have more of the manly qualities. On the contrary the occupation of the Ascendant by Saumaya or beneficial signs and the influence of the female planets will give the native womanly qualities like delicacy, gracefulness, humility and sense of yielding. It will seen in all fields of life. " Now when I went through the sidereal signs, Therese's claim about masculine signs being more introverted and feminine ones more extroverted proved to be valid. But there was something curious. The feminine signs were more active and " harder " in other ways too, and the masculine signs seemed to be softer and more yielding as Sharma puts it. For example sidereal Taurus gave a lot of sportsmen in its top-15 samples: football players, tennis players, rugby players, athletes, outdoor people, boxers & martial fighters, people served in the army. That's seven samples out of 15, almost a half of them. Those groups don't sound like soft and yielding (undoubtedly feminine qualities in any culture). On the other hand for example healers and therapists, people with metaphysical beliefs, mystical personalities and humanists & philosophers seldom had planets in sidereal Taurus in this study. When we move on to the next sign, Gemini, there we find softness and sensitivity: people with mystical experiences, people with vulnerable constitutions, rape & sex victims, suicides, gay men, artists & fashion designers. On the other hand mathematicians & statisticians, physics and chemists had few planets in sidereal Gemini in this study. The same tendency goes on from sign to sign: feminine signs are more extroverted, aggressive and outgoing, masculine signs show sensitivity, intuition and softness. This is not how it should be. Then we have also the ancient temperament theory. Therese hates this, but the doctrine about the Earth element (later Earth signs in astrology) being cold and dry and melancholic (introverted, intellectual, philosophical), Air being warm and moist and sanguine (warm, understanding, human, social and outgoing), etc. stems from Aristotle, and it has got through the time when the zodiacs were aligned. When the zodiacs were closer to each other (the difference started to be over half a sign only around the 14th century) it didn't matter that much, but today that philosophy cannot work on both of the zodiacs any more. Is sidereal Air warm, outgoing and social? No, it isn't. Is sidereal Water passive and phlegmatic? No, it isn't. Is the sidereal zodiac the one where the meanings have changed over the centuries? Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. The final test was to study dignities. Dignities must work only on one of the zodiacs, they cannot work on both. First I studied groups that had a lot of exalted planets. This is what I got on the tropical zodiac: - Aggressive personalities, ambitious personalities, top executives, diplomats, directors, people with high IQs - Private pilots, military pilots - Playwrights, actors, instrumentalists Some groups from the top-15 with few exalted planets were: - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rapists, substance abusers, executed people, polices - Columnists & journalists, political activists - Athletes, rugby players, tennis players, dancers. We can see quite a clear tendency here: people with many exalted planets are ambitious, even aggressively ambitious, goal oriented, aspiring and courageous. They are heading to the top. People with few exalted planets lack ambition and / or they criticize prevailing institutions (columnists & journalists, political activists). When people with many exalted planets wanted to express themselves in culture and arts using more intangible ways (playwrights, actors, instrumentalists), people with few exalted planets prefer physical self-expression (track and field, rugby, tennis, dancing). So there would seem to be a general idea here. What happens with sidereally exalted planets? Here we have: - People with vulnerable constutitions, lowly educated people, prisoners, terrorism victims - People with metaphysical beliefs, numerologists & palmists & tarot readers - Biologists, chemists, researchers, columnists & journalists - Top executives, real estate agents - Lottery winners, philanthropists. We have positive groups, but we have negative groups too. We have sensitive groups and tough groups. There's no clear tendency, no general guiding line. Maybe studying people with few exalted planets might help. We have here: - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rape & sex victims - Pop & rock singers, opera singers - Tennis players, rugby players, outdoor people. Again we lack a clear-cut thread. What do these people have in common? How do they differ from the previous group with a lot of exalted planets? Studying planets in their own domiciles gave a similar result. On the tropical zodiac the groups with a lot of planets in their own signs showed self-sufficiency, independence, giftedness, cleverness and in general a lucky disposition. People who lacked planets in their own signs were depressed more easily, got into prisons, made a suicides, served in the army and in general had to work harder and actively promote themselves to get ahead in life. Their road was more bumpy than those born with planets in their own signs. This is in perfect harmony with tradition. Sidereally the picture is again blurred. We have both fortunate and unfortunate groups with a lot of planets in their own signs, the same apples for people with few planets in their own signs, and there's no clear general idea emerging. On the other hand I'm quite sorry about the results. I've promoted myself the sidereal zodiac a lot especially here where I live, but it strongly seems that I have to turn my boat and give that up. I would have wanted the sidereal zodiac to work. The idea about actually seeing your zodiac in the sky with the fixed stars is beautiful, and I would have liked it in that way. But on the other hand I'm happy. It seems that the zodiac issue is finally starting to be solved for good (at least for me personally), and it's pleasing to see that the signs do work (and astrology does work!). Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Thanks, Sari, That's another great research project, and on a subject I've been wrestling with for a quarter of a century. Let me ask you this: In my thinking there's also a third category to take a look at here and that's the " overlap " area (for the twentieth century) of approximately the last six or seven degrees of each Tropical sign which is also the Sidereal " sign. " I always look at planets and points in this area because to me it's " definitely " that sign--whether Tropically or Sidereally. In other words, if a planet is in the last six or seven degrees of a Tropical sign then it's definitely that sign, and I don't have to wonder about the Sidereal/Tropical thing. So, in your study, I wonder how this " overlap " factor figured in with your results? (Though I see how this raises another question/problem with dignities, etc., whether they're themselves in the overlap area or not.) Best, Don - Sari M Monday, January 26, 2009 2:16 AM Comparing tropical / sidereal Hi list, to get a better picture of how the signs actually work I've been lately doing a study where I compare sidereal Fagan/Bradley signs with their tropical equivalents. I went through the usual 130 samples from ADB, and looked which of them had often planets in sidereal signs versus tropical signs. I used the seven visible planets only. This might be a good way to find out how the sidereal signs actually work, and on which zodiac the planetary rulers show better. This might also settle the question dividing the sidereal community about the " leaking theory " , a stand adopted by Therese where the traits of original sidereal signs have actually " leaked " to the modern-day tropical signs: sidereal Aries is like tropical Taurus; sidereal Taurus is like tropical Gemini, etc.. The other view says simply that tropicalists are fatally and utterly wrong, and the sidereal signs actually give the results tropicalists think the tropical signs do. As Therese pointed out, this way of thinking prevails in modern books of so called Vedic astrology, for example in " Vedic Astrology Simply Put " by William R. Levacy, that offers the same cook book delineations found in every Western tropical beginner's book, only applied on the sidereal zodiac. There are a few guiding lines. One is the note that G.C. Sharma gives in his Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra edition on the page 52: " All the signs of cruel nature are male signs and those of beneficial nature are female signs. (---) If the sign of the Ascendant is of cruel nature and is a male one the native will have more of the manly qualities. On the contrary the occupation of the Ascendant by Saumaya or beneficial signs and the influence of the female planets will give the native womanly qualities like delicacy, gracefulness, humility and sense of yielding. It will seen in all fields of life. " Now when I went through the sidereal signs, Therese's claim about masculine signs being more introverted and feminine ones more extroverted proved to be valid. But there was something curious. The feminine signs were more active and " harder " in other ways too, and the masculine signs seemed to be softer and more yielding as Sharma puts it. For example sidereal Taurus gave a lot of sportsmen in its top-15 samples: football players, tennis players, rugby players, athletes, outdoor people, boxers & martial fighters, people served in the army. That's seven samples out of 15, almost a half of them. Those groups don't sound like soft and yielding (undoubtedly feminine qualities in any culture). On the other hand for example healers and therapists, people with metaphysical beliefs, mystical personalities and humanists & philosophers seldom had planets in sidereal Taurus in this study. When we move on to the next sign, Gemini, there we find softness and sensitivity: people with mystical experiences, people with vulnerable constitutions, rape & sex victims, suicides, gay men, artists & fashion designers. On the other hand mathematicians & statisticians, physics and chemists had few planets in sidereal Gemini in this study. The same tendency goes on from sign to sign: feminine signs are more extroverted, aggressive and outgoing, masculine signs show sensitivity, intuition and softness. This is not how it should be. Then we have also the ancient temperament theory. Therese hates this, but the doctrine about the Earth element (later Earth signs in astrology) being cold and dry and melancholic (introverted, intellectual, philosophical), Air being warm and moist and sanguine (warm, understanding, human, social and outgoing), etc. stems from Aristotle, and it has got through the time when the zodiacs were aligned. When the zodiacs were closer to each other (the difference started to be over half a sign only around the 14th century) it didn't matter that much, but today that philosophy cannot work on both of the zodiacs any more. Is sidereal Air warm, outgoing and social? No, it isn't. Is sidereal Water passive and phlegmatic? No, it isn't. Is the sidereal zodiac the one where the meanings have changed over the centuries? Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. The final test was to study dignities. Dignities must work only on one of the zodiacs, they cannot work on both. First I studied groups that had a lot of exalted planets. This is what I got on the tropical zodiac: - Aggressive personalities, ambitious personalities, top executives, diplomats, directors, people with high IQs - Private pilots, military pilots - Playwrights, actors, instrumentalists Some groups from the top-15 with few exalted planets were: - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rapists, substance abusers, executed people, polices - Columnists & journalists, political activists - Athletes, rugby players, tennis players, dancers. We can see quite a clear tendency here: people with many exalted planets are ambitious, even aggressively ambitious, goal oriented, aspiring and courageous. They are heading to the top. People with few exalted planets lack ambition and / or they criticize prevailing institutions (columnists & journalists, political activists). When people with many exalted planets wanted to express themselves in culture and arts using more intangible ways (playwrights, actors, instrumentalists), people with few exalted planets prefer physical self-expression (track and field, rugby, tennis, dancing). So there would seem to be a general idea here. What happens with sidereally exalted planets? Here we have: - People with vulnerable constutitions, lowly educated people, prisoners, terrorism victims - People with metaphysical beliefs, numerologists & palmists & tarot readers - Biologists, chemists, researchers, columnists & journalists - Top executives, real estate agents - Lottery winners, philanthropists. We have positive groups, but we have negative groups too. We have sensitive groups and tough groups. There's no clear tendency, no general guiding line. Maybe studying people with few exalted planets might help. We have here: - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rape & sex victims - Pop & rock singers, opera singers - Tennis players, rugby players, outdoor people. Again we lack a clear-cut thread. What do these people have in common? How do they differ from the previous group with a lot of exalted planets? Studying planets in their own domiciles gave a similar result. On the tropical zodiac the groups with a lot of planets in their own signs showed self-sufficiency, independence, giftedness, cleverness and in general a lucky disposition. People who lacked planets in their own signs were depressed more easily, got into prisons, made a suicides, served in the army and in general had to work harder and actively promote themselves to get ahead in life. Their road was more bumpy than those born with planets in their own signs. This is in perfect harmony with tradition. Sidereally the picture is again blurred. We have both fortunate and unfortunate groups with a lot of planets in their own signs, the same apples for people with few planets in their own signs, and there's no clear general idea emerging. On the other hand I'm quite sorry about the results. I've promoted myself the sidereal zodiac a lot especially here where I live, but it strongly seems that I have to turn my boat and give that up. I would have wanted the sidereal zodiac to work. The idea about actually seeing your zodiac in the sky with the fixed stars is beautiful, and I would have liked it in that way. But on the other hand I'm happy. It seems that the zodiac issue is finally starting to be solved for good (at least for me personally), and it's pleasing to see that the signs do work (and astrology does work!). Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 So, are you returning to the tropical zodiac? To be honest, the first sidereal zodiac I heard of was in Vedic Astrology. At first, I read that the tropical excelled at psychology and personality readings, and the Vedic Astrology excelled at making predictions. Then, various people started denying all that. If your research is correct, Sari, maybe, and I mean maybe, they were right the first time. liberator_9 ________________________________ Sari M <gerdapp Monday, January 26, 2009 1:16:58 AM Comparing tropical / sidereal Hi list, to get a better picture of how the signs actually work I've been lately doing a study where I compare sidereal Fagan/Bradley signs with their tropical equivalents. I went through the usual 130 samples from ADB, and looked which of them had often planets in sidereal signs versus tropical signs. I used the seven visible planets only. This might be a good way to find out how the sidereal signs actually work, and on which zodiac the planetary rulers show better. This might also settle the question dividing the sidereal community about the " leaking theory " , a stand adopted by Therese where the traits of original sidereal signs have actually " leaked " to the modern-day tropical signs: sidereal Aries is like tropical Taurus; sidereal Taurus is like tropical Gemini, etc.. The other view says simply that tropicalists are fatally and utterly wrong, and the sidereal signs actually give the results tropicalists think the tropical signs do. As Therese pointed out, this way of thinking prevails in modern books of so called Vedic astrology, for example in " Vedic Astrology Simply Put " by William R. Levacy, that offers the same cook book delineations found in every Western tropical beginner's book, only applied on the sidereal zodiac. There are a few guiding lines. One is the note that G.C. Sharma gives in his Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra edition on the page 52: " All the signs of cruel nature are male signs and those of beneficial nature are female signs. (---) If the sign of the Ascendant is of cruel nature and is a male one the native will have more of the manly qualities. On the contrary the occupation of the Ascendant by Saumaya or beneficial signs and the influence of the female planets will give the native womanly qualities like delicacy, gracefulness, humility and sense of yielding. It will seen in all fields of life. " Now when I went through the sidereal signs, Therese's claim about masculine signs being more introverted and feminine ones more extroverted proved to be valid. But there was something curious. The feminine signs were more active and " harder " in other ways too, and the masculine signs seemed to be softer and more yielding as Sharma puts it. For example sidereal Taurus gave a lot of sportsmen in its top-15 samples: football players, tennis players, rugby players, athletes, outdoor people, boxers & martial fighters, people served in the army. That's seven samples out of 15, almost a half of them. Those groups don't sound like soft and yielding (undoubtedly feminine qualities in any culture). On the other hand for example healers and therapists, people with metaphysical beliefs, mystical personalities and humanists & philosophers seldom had planets in sidereal Taurus in this study. When we move on to the next sign, Gemini, there we find softness and sensitivity: people with mystical experiences, people with vulnerable constitutions, rape & sex victims, suicides, gay men, artists & fashion designers. On the other hand mathematicians & statisticians, physics and chemists had few planets in sidereal Gemini in this study. The same tendency goes on from sign to sign: feminine signs are more extroverted, aggressive and outgoing, masculine signs show sensitivity, intuition and softness. This is not how it should be. Then we have also the ancient temperament theory. Therese hates this, but the doctrine about the Earth element (later Earth signs in astrology) being cold and dry and melancholic (introverted, intellectual, philosophical) , Air being warm and moist and sanguine (warm, understanding, human, social and outgoing), etc. stems from Aristotle, and it has got through the time when the zodiacs were aligned. When the zodiacs were closer to each other (the difference started to be over half a sign only around the 14th century) it didn't matter that much, but today that philosophy cannot work on both of the zodiacs any more. Is sidereal Air warm, outgoing and social? No, it isn't. Is sidereal Water passive and phlegmatic? No, it isn't. Is the sidereal zodiac the one where the meanings have changed over the centuries? Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. The final test was to study dignities. Dignities must work only on one of the zodiacs, they cannot work on both. First I studied groups that had a lot of exalted planets. This is what I got on the tropical zodiac: - Aggressive personalities, ambitious personalities, top executives, diplomats, directors, people with high IQs - Private pilots, military pilots - Playwrights, actors, instrumentalists Some groups from the top-15 with few exalted planets were: - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rapists, substance abusers, executed people, polices - Columnists & journalists, political activists - Athletes, rugby players, tennis players, dancers. We can see quite a clear tendency here: people with many exalted planets are ambitious, even aggressively ambitious, goal oriented, aspiring and courageous. They are heading to the top. People with few exalted planets lack ambition and / or they criticize prevailing institutions (columnists & journalists, political activists). When people with many exalted planets wanted to express themselves in culture and arts using more intangible ways (playwrights, actors, instrumentalists) , people with few exalted planets prefer physical self-expression (track and field, rugby, tennis, dancing). So there would seem to be a general idea here. What happens with sidereally exalted planets? Here we have: - People with vulnerable constutitions, lowly educated people, prisoners, terrorism victims - People with metaphysical beliefs, numerologists & palmists & tarot readers - Biologists, chemists, researchers, columnists & journalists - Top executives, real estate agents - Lottery winners, philanthropists. We have positive groups, but we have negative groups too. We have sensitive groups and tough groups. There's no clear tendency, no general guiding line. Maybe studying people with few exalted planets might help. We have here: - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rape & sex victims - Pop & rock singers, opera singers - Tennis players, rugby players, outdoor people. Again we lack a clear-cut thread. What do these people have in common? How do they differ from the previous group with a lot of exalted planets? Studying planets in their own domiciles gave a similar result. On the tropical zodiac the groups with a lot of planets in their own signs showed self-sufficiency, independence, giftedness, cleverness and in general a lucky disposition. People who lacked planets in their own signs were depressed more easily, got into prisons, made a suicides, served in the army and in general had to work harder and actively promote themselves to get ahead in life. Their road was more bumpy than those born with planets in their own signs. This is in perfect harmony with tradition. Sidereally the picture is again blurred. We have both fortunate and unfortunate groups with a lot of planets in their own signs, the same apples for people with few planets in their own signs, and there's no clear general idea emerging. On the other hand I'm quite sorry about the results. I've promoted myself the sidereal zodiac a lot especially here where I live, but it strongly seems that I have to turn my boat and give that up. I would have wanted the sidereal zodiac to work. The idea about actually seeing your zodiac in the sky with the fixed stars is beautiful, and I would have liked it in that way. But on the other hand I'm happy. It seems that the zodiac issue is finally starting to be solved for good (at least for me personally), and it's pleasing to see that the signs do work (and astrology does work!). Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 At 09:16 AM 1/26/09 +0200, Sari wrote: >Hi list, > >to get a better picture of how the signs actually work I've been lately >doing a study where I compare sidereal Fagan/Bradley signs with their >tropical equivalents... Hi Sari, Thanks for continuing the discussion on sidereal signs. There are so many interesting thoughts in your post that I'm going to reply in separate posts later today. But my question at the moment is how did you (currently) come to the decision to use the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa? I think list members would like to know. You probably explained this in a past post, but I don't remember exactly what you said. It might have been due to results from your studies where you posted graphs on your web site. >(...) Sari wrote: >Then we have also the ancient temperament theory. Therese hates this, but >the doctrine about the Earth element (later Earth signs in astrology) being >cold and dry and melancholic (introverted, intellectual, philosophical), Air >being warm and moist and sanguine (warm, understanding, human, social and >outgoing), etc. stems from Aristotle... There's a misunderstanding here. I don't hate the temperament theory. Actually I've worked with it and it can be applied in a different way to the sidereal zodiac, but mostly temperament is in the planets. I beieve it's incorrect to apply temperament theory to the sidereal signs in the same way it relates to tropical signs. The traits don't apply in the sidereal as you have listed them above. Neither do I believe that the elements relate to sidereal signs, but rather the four qualities of Aristotle: hot, cold, wet, and dry. Rob Hand points out that these were Ptolemy's original categories, but other astrologers changed these to the four elements. >[sari wrote:] but today that philosophy cannot work on both of >the zodiacs any more. Is sidereal Air warm, outgoing and social? No, it >isn't. Is sidereal Water passive and phlegmatic? No, it isn't. Is the >sidereal zodiac the one where the meanings have changed over the centuries? >Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. It's more true to say that temperament theory evolved in the tropical zodiac and never did apply to the sidereal zodiac. This is also true of the three qualities: cardinal, fixed and mutable, which definitely relate to seasonal changes. I've posted an article on this: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm But any temperament traits that apply to the planets would work in both zodiacs. More later, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 At 11:42 AM 1/26/09 -0500, Don (Scribe) wrote: >Thanks, Sari, >That's another great research project, and on a subject I've been wrestling with for a quarter of a century. Let me ask you this: In my thinking there's also a third category to take a look at here and that's the " overlap " area (for the twentieth century) of approximately the last six or seven degrees of each Tropical sign which is also the Sidereal " sign. " I always look at planets and points in this area because to me it's " definitely " that sign--whether Tropically or Sidereally. Hi Don, I've said for years that this overlap area is the key to the correct zodiac. But in order to understand if this overlap area applies to one zodiac or the oher, we first need to really understand sign principles. There's also the posssibility that sign principles are weaker at the ends and beginnings of signs, so would be difficult to identify. It would be interesting to somehow design studies that relate to this overlap area. [Don wrote:] In other words, if a planet is in the last six or seven degrees of a Tropical sign then it's definitely that sign, and I don't have to wonder about the Sidereal/Tropical thing. Well, actually you do have to wonder about it because tropical sign principles are different than the sidereal. So it's either one or the other. It can't be both unless traits of one sign are the same in both zodiacs. That isn't logical, and research isn't supporting that view. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 In support of Sari's research I was suprised to learn that Ernst Wilhelm, the author of the excellent Vedic program Kala, has switched to the tropical zodiac. In a post in another forum, on the inconsistencies he's found with the Vedic system, he writes: " These inconsistencies, quite naturally, disturbed me and so I spent 2 years testing every astrology technique I had ever learned from the ancient Indian astrological texts and they all worked better with the tropical Zodiac. I was shocked, but what could I do in the face of evidence but begin to use Tropical Rasis. " Ernst is no lightweight and, considering all of the studying he's done, it is very courages of him to admit this. The inconsistencies he mentions can be found in the article " The Mystery of the Zodiac " on his site: http://www.vedic astrology.net/FreeClasses/Ayanamsa-and-Rasis.asp I, too, am close to giving up on the Sidereal zodiac. Whatever advantages sidereal techniques showed in the area of timing can be duplicated using precessed tropical techniques. IMHO , Stephen Glaser <liberator_9 wrote: > > So, are you returning to the tropical zodiac? To be honest, the first sidereal zodiac I heard of was in Vedic Astrology. At first, I read that the tropical excelled at psychology and personality readings, and the Vedic Astrology excelled at making predictions. Then, various people started denying all that. If your research is correct, Sari, maybe, and I mean maybe, they were right the first time. > liberator_9 > > > > > ________________________________ > Sari M <gerdapp > > Monday, January 26, 2009 1:16:58 AM > Comparing tropical / sidereal > > > Hi list, > > to get a better picture of how the signs actually work I've been lately > doing a study where I compare sidereal Fagan/Bradley signs with their > tropical equivalents. I went through the usual 130 samples from ADB, and > looked which of them had often planets in sidereal signs versus tropical > signs. I used the seven visible planets only. This might be a good way to > find out how the sidereal signs actually work, and on which zodiac the > planetary rulers show better. > > This might also settle the question dividing the sidereal community about > the " leaking theory " , a stand adopted by Therese where the traits of > original sidereal signs have actually " leaked " to the modern-day tropical > signs: sidereal Aries is like tropical Taurus; sidereal Taurus is like > tropical Gemini, etc.. The other view says simply that tropicalists are > fatally and utterly wrong, and the sidereal signs actually give the results > tropicalists think the tropical signs do. As Therese pointed out, this way > of thinking prevails in modern books of so called Vedic astrology, for > example in " Vedic Astrology Simply Put " by William R. Levacy, that offers > the same cook book delineations found in every Western tropical beginner's > book, only applied on the sidereal zodiac. > > There are a few guiding lines. One is the note that G.C. Sharma gives in his > Brihat Parasara Hora Sastra edition on the page 52: > " All the signs of cruel nature are male signs and those of beneficial nature > are female signs. (---) If the sign of the Ascendant is of cruel nature and > is a male one the native will have more of the manly qualities. On the > contrary the occupation of the Ascendant by Saumaya or beneficial signs and > the influence of the female planets will give the native womanly qualities > like delicacy, gracefulness, humility and sense of yielding. It will seen in > all fields of life. " > > Now when I went through the sidereal signs, Therese's claim about masculine > signs being more introverted and feminine ones more extroverted proved to be > valid. But there was something curious. The feminine signs were more active > and " harder " in other ways too, and the masculine signs seemed to be softer > and more yielding as Sharma puts it. > > For example sidereal Taurus gave a lot of sportsmen in its top-15 samples: > football players, tennis players, rugby players, athletes, outdoor people, > boxers & martial fighters, people served in the army. That's seven samples > out of 15, almost a half of them. Those groups don't sound like soft and > yielding (undoubtedly feminine qualities in any culture). On the other hand > for example healers and therapists, people with metaphysical beliefs, > mystical personalities and humanists & philosophers seldom had planets in > sidereal Taurus in this study. > > When we move on to the next sign, Gemini, there we find softness and > sensitivity: people with mystical experiences, people with vulnerable > constitutions, rape & sex victims, suicides, gay men, artists & fashion > designers. On the other hand mathematicians & statisticians, physics and > chemists had few planets in sidereal Gemini in this study. > > The same tendency goes on from sign to sign: feminine signs are more > extroverted, aggressive and outgoing, masculine signs show sensitivity, > intuition and softness. This is not how it should be. > > Then we have also the ancient temperament theory. Therese hates this, but > the doctrine about the Earth element (later Earth signs in astrology) being > cold and dry and melancholic (introverted, intellectual, philosophical) , Air > being warm and moist and sanguine (warm, understanding, human, social and > outgoing), etc. stems from Aristotle, and it has got through the time when > the zodiacs were aligned. When the zodiacs were closer to each other (the > difference started to be over half a sign only around the 14th century) it > didn't matter that much, but today that philosophy cannot work on both of > the zodiacs any more. Is sidereal Air warm, outgoing and social? No, it > isn't. Is sidereal Water passive and phlegmatic? No, it isn't. Is the > sidereal zodiac the one where the meanings have changed over the centuries? > Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. > > The final test was to study dignities. Dignities must work only on one of > the zodiacs, they cannot work on both. > > First I studied groups that had a lot of exalted planets. This is what I got > on the tropical zodiac: > - Aggressive personalities, ambitious personalities, top executives, > diplomats, directors, people with high IQs > - Private pilots, military pilots > - Playwrights, actors, instrumentalists > > Some groups from the top-15 with few exalted planets were: > - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rapists, substance abusers, executed > people, polices > - Columnists & journalists, political activists > - Athletes, rugby players, tennis players, dancers. > > We can see quite a clear tendency here: people with many exalted planets are > ambitious, even aggressively ambitious, goal oriented, aspiring and > courageous. They are heading to the top. People with few exalted planets > lack ambition and / or they criticize prevailing institutions (columnists & > journalists, political activists). When people with many exalted planets > wanted to express themselves in culture and arts using more intangible ways > (playwrights, actors, instrumentalists) , people with few exalted planets > prefer physical self-expression (track and field, rugby, tennis, dancing). > So there would seem to be a general idea here. > > What happens with sidereally exalted planets? Here we have: > - People with vulnerable constutitions, lowly educated people, prisoners, > terrorism victims > - People with metaphysical beliefs, numerologists & palmists & tarot readers > - Biologists, chemists, researchers, columnists & journalists > - Top executives, real estate agents > - Lottery winners, philanthropists. > > We have positive groups, but we have negative groups too. We have sensitive > groups and tough groups. There's no clear tendency, no general guiding line. > > Maybe studying people with few exalted planets might help. We have here: > - Nervous breakdown cases, suicides, rape & sex victims > - Pop & rock singers, opera singers > - Tennis players, rugby players, outdoor people. > > Again we lack a clear-cut thread. What do these people have in common? How > do they differ from the previous group with a lot of exalted planets? > > Studying planets in their own domiciles gave a similar result. On the > tropical zodiac the groups with a lot of planets in their own signs showed > self-sufficiency, independence, giftedness, cleverness and in general a > lucky disposition. People who lacked planets in their own signs were > depressed more easily, got into prisons, made a suicides, served in the army > and in general had to work harder and actively promote themselves to get > ahead in life. Their road was more bumpy than those born with planets in > their own signs. This is in perfect harmony with tradition. > > Sidereally the picture is again blurred. We have both fortunate and > unfortunate groups with a lot of planets in their own signs, the same apples > for people with few planets in their own signs, and there's no clear general > idea emerging. > > On the other hand I'm quite sorry about the results. I've promoted myself > the sidereal zodiac a lot especially here where I live, but it strongly > seems that I have to turn my boat and give that up. I would have wanted the > sidereal zodiac to work. The idea about actually seeing your zodiac in the > sky with the fixed stars is beautiful, and I would have liked it in that > way. > > But on the other hand I'm happy. It seems that the zodiac issue is finally > starting to be solved for good (at least for me personally), and it's > pleasing to see that the signs do work (and astrology does work!). > > Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 At 01:13 AM 1/27/09 -0000, Buz Overbeck wrote: >In support of Sari's research I was suprised to learn that Ernst >Wilhelm, the author of the excellent Vedic program Kala, has switched >to the tropical zodiac. In a post in another forum, on the >inconsistencies he's found with the Vedic system, he writes: > > " These inconsistencies, quite naturally, disturbed me and so I spent >2 years testing every astrology technique I had ever learned from the >ancient Indian astrological texts and they all worked better with the >tropical Zodiac. I was shocked, but what could I do in the face of >evidence but begin to use Tropical Rasis. " ----------------------- Buz, it's nice to see a direct quote from Ernst Wilhelm on his change of perspective. Can you give the URL of the forum that has this quote? There must have been some serious discussion around this point. >Ernst is no lightweight and, considering all of the studying he's >done, it is very courages of him to admit this. Ernst is no lightweight (his GRAHA SUTRAS is one of the best astrology books ever written..) BUT he has one mark against him. Judging from his photos and those of his wife, he's quite young. I know the process through which he came to his conclusion about the zodiacs. Ernst has great reverence for Indian's ancient texts, and there's no doubt that there are many references related to the tropical zodiac in these texts. This is understandable since major sources for these texts were the Hellenistic and Arabic worlds. >The inconsistencies he mentions can be found in the article " The >Mystery of the Zodiac " on his site: >http://www.vedic astrology.net/FreeClasses/Ayanamsa-and-Rasis.asp Yes, I've had that article printed out for some time. Ernst's confusion is reflected in this quote from the article in which he covers his research into ancient texts: " Varahamihira's works have apparent contradictions. Perhaps this can be explained by his views changing over the years...In any case, it is not clear enough to determine whether Varahamihira believed in the tropical or sidereal zodiac. There is more evidence that he was not aware of precession... " Ernst Wilhelm seems to be tending toward the tropical zodiac in his article. He had to deeply study the zodiac issue since his next planned book was to be on zodiac signs. It would certainly be interesting to see in detail the techniques he used to study the zodiacs. Until we see these tests, we should probably withhold any judgement. >I, too, am close to giving up on the Sidereal zodiac. Whatever >advantages sidereal techniques showed in the area of timing can be >duplicated using precessed tropical techniques. The dilemma, of course, is in the timing. Why should one zodiac be correct for signs, but that zodiac doesn't work for timing?? At any rate, we now have the tools for comprehensive studies on the zodiacs. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Don wrote: Let me ask you this: In my thinking there's also a third category to take a look at here and that's the " overlap " area (for the twentieth century) of approximately the last six or seven degrees of each Tropical sign which is also the Sidereal " sign. " I always look at planets and points in this area because to me it's " definitely " that sign--whether Tropically or Sidereally. Sari: Therese has answered this already, and I think around the same lines - that only one of the zodiacs work and then we don't have to worry about the overlappin area. The crucial question is: where is the real boundary between the signs, which zodiac shows it better? One way to test it might be the overlapping area of Sagittarius (about 0-6 degrees sidereal Sagittarius). In the research I did sidereal Sagittarius showed to be a scientific sign: it had physics, biologists, chemists, researchers and Nobel prize winners. Does this scientific character show up in early sidereal Sagittarius? I looked from ADB charts that had emphasis there, and I didn't find any specific scientific theme. Tropially that scientific nature would have more to do with Capricorn (fits better, IMO, if I think the dry and cold nature of Earth and Saturn). Therese wrote: But my question at the moment is how did you (currently) come to the decision to use the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa? Sari: It showed to be better in some statistical studies. In the end it was probably only that you have to choose one ayanamsa. Therese wrote: It's more true to say that temperament theory evolved in the tropical zodiac and never did apply to the sidereal zodiac. Sari: This I don't quite understand, because for many centuries the zodiacs were more or less aligned. Even when there was about 8-9 degrees difference in the early medieval period, the zodiacs were still more together than separate. The temperament theory (that was in full practice by then) must have been more or less applicable on both zodiacs even at that time. The early astrologers couldn't really know which of the zodiacs worked better and they probably didn't have to care about that. It's only today that the zodiacs are separate enough to clearly see the difference. Don wrote: My present project is to map out the various paths, using timelines, to see which countries, which schools of thought came into being and/or practiced astrology in certain ways. At this point I see a great deal of overlapping in " western " astrology up until the 1400's when Ptolemy's writing became translated and the TZ became popular. Prior to Kepler and this period, a great deal of Sidereal stuff was evident. Then the Tropical Zodiac took over. Sari: This is a really interesting area of study, though as Therese mentioned, James Holden has done a lot of work in that area already. It's true that the tropical zodiac came really popular in the West only after Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos was translated in Latin (and there's no doubt that we can accuse Ptolemy for, if not inventing, at least popularizing the tropical zodiac in astrology). But then the question is: did astrologers in the early 2nd millennia switch to the tropical zodiac only because Ptolemy said so, or was the overlapping area disminished so that it become evident that only one of the zodiacs works, and that one is the tropical zodiac? Best, Sari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.