Establishing some facts about the Zodiacs

[Guest guest]

At 01:07 PM 1/29/09 -0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

>Of the " facts " that were listed, let us take a couple of them and

>extend them into " apparently appropriate statements: "

>

>GIVEN " FACT "

>> The Precessional Ages of recorded history have included the age of

>the Bull (Taurus), the Ram (Aries), and currently the Fish (Pisces).

>Each of the ages, lasting some 2000+ years, has been marked by a

>cultural-social " theme " that is recognized by most students of

>history...It does seem acceptable that the Bull, Ram and

>Fish periods are indicative of an actual historical theme.

>>

>EXTENDED CONCLUSION: The Tropical Zodiac may indeed have validity, at

>least in terms of mundane astrology.

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

 

Dave, I don't follow how this relates to the tropical zodiac. The last 2000

years have been torn with war, bloodshed, discord and revolution. We've

also had the industrial revolution, world exploration, the development of

science, and lately complete global networking through air flight and the

internet. We also have had the growth of organized religion.

 

Are these discussed in relation to Pisces in tropical books? Do the

supposed traits of tropical Pisces reflect this emphasis? Each age also

reflects the opposite sign, so the age of Pisces is really the age of

Virgo-Pisces. Alice O. Howell has written a book on the signs and ages:

JUNGIAN SYNCHRONICITY IN ASTROLOGICAL SIGNS AND AGES. I believe lately I've

read that she has a new book--perhaps this older book updated. (I can't

comment at ths time on her books.)

 

Of late (the cusp of the Aquarian Age?) we've had a flood of teachers and

books letting us know that there is no death, that life continues--spirit

communication is more and more common as reflected in several television

shows that deal with life beyond death. This all began, I believe in the

80s. We're starting to realize that each of us has own own connection to

Divinity, and the churches and their dogma (Pisces) are beginning to

deteriorate. Because characteristics of the Piscean age continues, we don't

seem to be fully within the Aquarian age as yet which may be a few hundred

years in the future--but we're seeing the chaos of the transition.

 

If we're going to discuss the cosmic ages in relation to zodiac signs, we

have to do a good job or serveying history and the states of human

consciousness. Is there any correlation between these patterns and sign

principles in either zodiac? But first, what forms the basis of sign

principles? Planets? Mythology? Can we use facts of historical ages to help

form Pisces, Aries and Taurus principles? (Actually, we can. I've looked

into this. The correlation is sidereal. But much more work needs to be done.)

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

> >EXTENDED CONCLUSION: The Tropical Zodiac may indeed have validity, at

> >least in terms of mundane astrology.

> --------------------

>

> Dave, I don't follow how this relates to the tropical zodiac. The

last 2000

> years have been torn with war, bloodshed, discord and revolution. We've

> also had the industrial revolution, world exploration, the

development of

> science, and lately complete global networking through air flight

and the

> internet. We also have had the growth of organized religion.

>

REPLY:

The age of the Fishes corresponded with the emergence of several major

religions, and exploration of the world via sea travel, an increase in

commerce via the sea, the spread of ideas and visions via theater and

parades, the growth of entertainment forms, the rise of Alchemy and

establishment of Chemistry, the development of medicines, photography,

the adoption of natural gases for lighting and industrial processing,

the rise of petroleum based energy and products, advertising, the

building of cathedrals, establishment of religious orders, development

and expansion of poetry, the start and use of perspective in

paintings. All of this and more was noted in a conversation with a

staunch Tropicalist.

 

Perhaps another topic to explore next. Dave

[Guest guest]

At 01:35 AM 1/30/09 -0000, Dave wrote:

>REPLY:

>The age of the Fishes corresponded with the emergence of several major

>religions, and exploration of the world via sea travel, an increase in

>commerce via the sea, the spread of ideas and visions via theater and

>parades, the growth of entertainment forms, the rise of Alchemy and

>establishment of Chemistry, the development of medicines, photography,

>the adoption of natural gases for lighting and industrial processing,

>the rise of petroleum based energy and products, advertising, the

>building of cathedrals, establishment of religious orders, development

>and expansion of poetry, the start and use of perspective in

>paintings. All of this and more was noted in a conversation with a

>staunch Tropicalist.

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

 

Yes, I'd agree with most of that. Jupiter and Neptune. But this isn't the

same as the psychological profile of today's tropical Pisces. That's what I

was trying to point out. Anyhow, the above is a good partial summary of

history that can be said to relate to Pisces. Jupiter is outgoing and

expansive, often theatrical. Tropical Pisces tends to be quiet and an

introvert. Isn't this an example of the tropical mis-match between ruling

planet and sign?

 

Then there's tropical Aries, always ready to spead its wings and begin a

new adventure--can't stand retriction and boredom. Isn't this a bit like

Jupiter's expansiveness? Neptune/Poseidon was known to race over the waves

of the sea conquering wherever he wished. The Greek Poseidon was a stormy

and wrathful god. But in order to try to make Neptune fit today's tropical

Pisces, Neptune's supposed influence on poetry and music is emphasized. But

the mythological Posiedon/Neptune was of a different character. (I really

do believe that Greek and Roman myths give important keys to signs of the

zodiac.)

 

Most astrologers who use either zodiac would likely come to general

agreement about the major historical tone of the last 2000 years.

But...sigh...even that takes a fair amount of research, though there are

some excellent books that give historical outlines.

 

Dave, your tropical source didn't mention the constant on-going war and

carnage of the last 2000 years. And so many wars were in the name of

religion. Might makes right. Let's hope all this will soon be over!

 

Thanks for the discussion,

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Hi Therese and Everybody,

Do you agree with this? It is a clarification of terms given to

me by someone else on his forum:

 

 

 

" Spelled with a lower-case S, " sidereal " is a common adjective which,

in the context of zodiacs, means that it is aprecessional, i.e., not

beholden to precession of the equinoxes. Theoretically there is an

infinite number of possible sidereal zodiacs. In practice, Hindu

astrologers have used dozens of different ones.

 

Spelled with a capital S, " Sidereal " is a proper adjective, which is

the name of a specific sidereal zodiac and the astrological system

most associated with it, arising primarily out of the work of Cyril

Fagan and Donald Bradley.

 

The most common sidereal zodiac used by Hindu astrologers (called the

Chitra Zodiac) varies by almost 1° from the Sidereal Zodiac. Aside

from placing 1 out of 30 planets in the wrong sign, this error

adversely affects things fundamental to Hindu astrology systems such

as the Dasa system.

 

But, aside from the zodiac discrepancy (or, rather, discrepancies,

since different Hindu schools use dozens of different possible zodiacs

- different ayanamsas), the methodology of Hindu astrology much more

resembles Western Tropical astrology than it does Sidereal Astrology.

For all the similarities in theory concerning the idea of a zodiac,

there is remarkably little in common between Hindu astrologers and

Sidereal Astrologers. "

 

Thanks,

chrys333

[Guest guest]

At 07:14 PM 1/30/09 -0000, chrys333 wrote:

>Hi Therese and Everybody,

> Do you agree with this? It is a clarification of terms given to

>me by someone else on his forum:

 

Hi Chrys,

 

I'll have to take these terms individually.

 

> " Spelled with a lower-case S, " sidereal " is a common adjective which,

>in the context of zodiacs, means that it is aprecessional, i.e., not

>beholden to precession of the equinoxes.

 

This is O.K., yes.

 

>Theoretically there is an

>infinite number of possible sidereal zodiacs. In practice, Hindu

>astrologers have used dozens of different ones.

 

Not dozens. Maybe a dozen in the past, but now most astrologers use Lahiri,

perhaps because of available tables. Another zodiac that astrologers cling

to is Raman. There are tables easily available for that ayanamsa as well.

Some like myself use the Krishnamurti ayanamsa, slightly different from

Lahiri. We use this ayanamsa because of more exact dasa periods as we see

them.

 

>Spelled with a capital S, " Sidereal " is a proper adjective, which is

>the name of a specific sidereal zodiac and the astrological system

>most associated with it, arising primarily out of the work of Cyril

>Fagan and Donald Bradley.

 

No, I don't agree with this. The proponents of that system would like to

think that their system has a capital S. That was O.K. as long as India's

astrology remained in India, but with the sidereal zodiac much more popular

now in the west, it's more accurate to call the western system " The

Fagan-Bradley sidereal system. "

 

This is kind of like the recent battle over the term 'self-realization'.

Yogananda's organization (Self-Realization Fellowship) sued Ananda who used

the term 'Church of Self-Realization.' The court decided that

self-realization was a generic term. Likewise sidereal is a generic term.

 

>The most common sidereal zodiac used by Hindu astrologers (called the

>Chitra Zodiac) [or the Lahiri ayanamsa] varies by almost 1 degree from the

Sidereal Zodiac....

 

This should properly be termed 'the Fagan-Bradley sidereal zodiac.'

 

> Aside from placing 1 out of 30 planets in the wrong sign...

 

This is a blatent **opinion** that has no real support in research.

 

>this error adversely affects things fundamental to Hindu astrology systems

such

>as the Dasa system.

 

The timing of the dasa system works poorly in my experience using the

Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa. That's why I stopped using it many years ago.

 

>But, aside from the zodiac discrepancy (or, rather, discrepancies,

>since different Hindu schools use dozens of different possible zodiacs

>- different ayanamsas),

 

'Dozens' is an exaggeration based on the belief that the Fagan-Bradley

ayanamsa is the only correct one.

 

>the methodology of Hindu astrology much more

>resembles Western Tropical astrology than it does Sidereal Astrology.

 

The Jyotish system and western astrology have the same roots. Yes, they are

quite similar in some ways. The western Fagan-Bradley sidereal system is

much more limited in its approach. Timing and angularity are of critical

importance in the Fagan-Bradley system.

 

Note: If you discussed a " Sidereal " system in India, they wouldn't know

what you were talking about unless you clarified with " Fagan-Bradley. " Or

possibly 'western sidereal.'

 

>For all the similarities in theory concerning the idea of a zodiac,

>there is remarkably little in common between Hindu astrologers and

>Sidereal Astrologers. "

 

It's true that there is more similarity in technique between tropical and

Jyotish than between Jyotish and those who use the Fagan-Bradley system.

One common denominator is the use of solar return charts (termed

Varshaphala in Jyotish.) Actually India was already ahead of the game with

return charts, since they've always been calculated in the sidereal zodiac.

 

>Thanks,

>chrys333

 

You're welcome,Chrys. Thanks for asking for further opinions.

 

Therese