2-Therese, David and All: re. How to tell whether tropical or sidereal is more accurate?

[Guest guest]

" The Jyotish of the West " (Or: Do you really know your Sun

Sign?)

Messages In This Digest (2 Messages)

1a.

Tropical-Sidereal

and Sun-Ascendant study of well-known people

David

Monroe 1b. Re:

Tropical-Sidereal and Sun-Ascendant study of well-known people

Therese Hamilton e problem with the personality

appraoch is that the ancient astrologers

didn't view charts in that

way. They emphasized destiny and accomplishment.

I've found the most

important core personality traits to be much more in

the navamsa

rather than the natal chart. It's possible that the natal chart

 

itself only deals with external concepts: If the person is likely to

 

manifest his potential--his external behavior as apart from internal

 

motivation, etc. But tropical astrology has used this external chart as

a

picture of motivation and personality. This may be incorrect.

 

>...in many cases with celeberties and media-present

people, we know of them

>but we have less sense of their

personality.

 

That's true. Personality and skills or

accomplishment are two different

areas for study. It's much easier

to judge what a person has done in life

(as Michael Flatley and

Martha Stewart) rather than their underlying

motivation. We can

observe the behavior of celebrities, but we can't know

what they

*are* in their hearts. Even ordinary people are a confusion of

 

contradictions and motivations.

 

This is why astrological

study (at least for the time being) has to deal

with externals. Why,

for example, has Michael Flatley obained cult status

and world

renown while thousands of other dancers have not? What's the

 

astrological signature for that? At least the ascendant and aspects (as

you

suggested) must be a key. But this isn't necessarily personality

per se.

 

Therese

 

 

Dear Therese, David & All:  I think sometimes

that we get too complicated in our ideas or

research.  We should

each look at ourselves.  When we look within, we each can see

whether

our tropical or sidereal charts fit us.

 

When I

first studied astrology, (western in 1970), that chart did fit me. 

Later, however, when I

studied Jyotish I became keenly aware of just

how much more accurate the eastern chart was.

 

I've also done

quite a bit of research with people who've also learned exactly how their

sidereal

charts really do fit them better.

 

For example, in

my own chart, (Sept 4,1951) I've got a Virgo western Sun vs. a sidereal

Sun in Leo.  There is a huge difference between these two.  My

Leo sun fits me more while I do related to Virgo a lot too.  But,

when I look at my eastern chart, coincidently both my Moon and Saturn are

in Virgo which explains why I identify with my Virgoness.

 

Right

now, both systems overall.  But, in another 1600 years, there will be

over 46 degrees difference and there will be very little

resemblance.  Then, there are some areas in each person's

charts

where the western really doesn't fit as well.

 

For me, two of

those instances are my Jupiter and Mars.  In my western chart my

Jupiter's in Aries and my Mars is in Leo.  But, my eastern or

sidereal Jupiter in Pisces and my Mars in Cancer, both fit me much more

easily.

 

I've also found with other people, that if you listen

closely enough to their exact speech, you'll

hear their exact charts

speaking!

 

Finally, the transits of the stars throughout the

year, really do follow the sidereal or eastern movements.  You can

literally feel the Moon cursing through the different signs, and when

in

Leo, Virgo, Libra or Scorpio; you can totally feel these shifts,

in the air.

 

These experiences in the 'stars' and in people's

experiences; but most importantly, within our-

selves; all show that

the sidereal system is more accurate.

 

We also make speculation

about such people as celebrities as too complicated.

 

To me, a

more interesting study would be about the Moon.  For example, the

Moon's supposed

to represent how strong we are emotionally. 

Those with smaller Moon's, waning, and malefically

aggravated all,

have many, many emotional problems.

 

Well, do a study, interview

1,000 and ask them a standard battery of psychological questions,

pertaining to emotional stability and you will find an incredible

relationship between their chart

Moon's and their emotional

natures.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Mark

Kincaid

 

 

View

All Topics | Create

New Topic

Messages

1a.

 

Tropical-Sidereal and Sun-Ascendant study of well-known people

 

Posted by: " David Monroe "

dadsnook dadsnook2000

 

Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:25 am (PST)

Therese and List Members.

 

I've gone through my selected charts of well-known people to see who

 

had an unaspected Ascendant and/or Sun. Why was I surprised to find

 

that these engaged people all had strongly aspected ascendant and sun

positions. On the other hand, the couch potatoes of this world

would

be good subjects but they are not well known and also not

worth the

time and effort for commenting on --- astrologically

speaking.

 

So, we either deal with aspect-complexities or we

abandon this

approach to comparing tropical and sidereal influences.

Or, we go

through the Khaldea chart gallery (where the names listed

are directly

linked to a chart presentation) to find non-aspected

(strongly)

Ascendant and Sun charts. I had picked my set of charts

based on the

fact that I had some sense of the personality behind

the person. In

many cases with celeberties and media-present

people, we know of them

but we have less sense of their personality.

Dave

 

 

 

Back to top

 

 

Reply to sender |

 

Reply to group |

 

Reply via web post

 

Messages in this topic (2)

 

1b.

 

Re: Tropical-Sidereal and Sun-Ascendant study of well-known

people

Posted by: " Therese Hamilton "

eastwest

therese92003

 

Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:41 am (PST)

At 04:25 PM 1/18/09 -0000, Dave

wrote:

>Therese and List Members.

>I've gone through my

selected charts of well-known people to see who

>had an

unaspected Ascendant and/or Sun. Why was I surprised to find

 

>that these engaged people all had strongly aspected ascendant and

sun

>positions {?} On the other hand, the couch potatoes of this

world would

>be good subjects but they are not well known and

also not worth the

>time and effort for commenting on ---

astrologically speaking.

 

Dave, I believe you're saying here

that noted people have strongly aspected

Suns and/or ascendants

while those of little accomplishment have fewer

aspects? The problem

with this appraoch is that everyone born during the

same day has the

same aspects, at least to the Sun.

 

So why do we have a

Barack Obama amidst thousands of ordinary people born

the same day?

What makes the difference? Obama is fully manifesting his

potential

while the others are not. One key is most likely the placement of

 

planets in the diurnal circle, not in the aspects themselves.

 

I've just read that Robert Schmidt has put together from ancient texts

an

entirely new understading of aspects and their complexities. This

system,

as I understand it, is full of twists and turns that we

don't yet take into

consideration today. In other words, we may have

only a kindergarten

understanding of aspects.

 

 

>[Dave wrote:]So, we either deal with aspect-complexities or we abandon

this

>approach to comparing tropical and sidereal influences.

Or, we go

>through the Khaldea chart gallery...

 

 

What is the Khaldea chart gallery? Aspects: they are the same in

tropical

or sidereal, so how can they help with the zodiac?

 

 

>... (where the names listed are directly

>linked to a

chart presentation) to find non-aspected (strongly)

>Ascendant

and Sun charts. I had picked my set of charts based on the

>fact

that I had some sense of the personality behind the person.

 

The problem with the personality appraoch is that the ancient

astrologers

didn't view charts in that way. They emphasized destiny

and accomplishment.

I've found the most important core personality

traits to be much more in

the navamsa rather than the natal chart.

It's possible that the natal chart

itself only deals with external

concepts: If the person is likely to

manifest his potential--his

external behavior as apart from internal

motivation, etc. But

tropical astrology has used this external chart as a

picture of

motivation and personality. This may be incorrect.

 

 

>...in many cases with celeberties and media-present people, we know of

them

>but we have less sense of their personality.

 

That's true. Personality and skills or accomplishment are two

different

areas for study. It's much easier to judge what a person

has done in life

(as Michael Flatley and Martha Stewart) rather than

their underlying

motivation. We can observe the behavior of

celebrities, but we can't know

what they *are* in their hearts. Even

ordinary people are a confusion of

contradictions and motivations.

 

 

This is why astrological study (at least for the time

being) has to deal

with externals. Why, for example, has Michael

Flatley obained cult status

and world renown while thousands of

other dancers have not? What's the

astrological signature for that?

At least the ascendant and aspects (as you

suggested) must be a key.

But this isn't necessarily personality per se.

 

 

Therese