Zodiacs (was Relocating & Ciro)

[Guest guest]

Hi Therese:

 

Thanks for this well-thought reply.

 

IMEx (in my experience), my view is only held by a very small percentage

of the astrologers. The vast majority are true believer types that hold

dearly to " A " or " B " . Asking them to expand their paradigm to " C "

(both) more often than not causes their faces to twist and their head to

tilt. I know from my own internal chatter that opting for " C " makes one

more than a little schizophrenic. Too often I've found myself talking

to myself and asking me questions such as: Well . . . if " X " is true,

then how can " Y " possibly be true, also? And yes, this does make one

want to find explanations for apparent differences of perception when

viewing the two skies independently.

 

Speaking here as a majority of one, I will say that IMEx both sets of

systems seem to work. I know Tropical astrologers who give some very

fine and comprehensive reading. Likewise can be said for Sidereal and

Vedic folks. I see pluses and minuses to both Tropical & Sidereal. I

am not an apologist for any system. When teaching other docs in

seminar, I am not even a strong proponent for the unique healing system

I developed. For me, the first rule in any area of life has to be: Do

what works, and do not do what doesn't work. Likewise, when my favorite

prof. in school was asked: " What is the best technique for getting sick

people well? " He answered: " The system that is most comfortable for

that doc to use. " The study of the human being is the study of life,

and so too is astrology, IMO. It seems to me that at this point in time

our collective ignorance still outweighs our collective knowledge.

Below you asked some very important questions. I would feel very good

about myself if I could answer those properly. I have observed your

mind through your writing for quite a while and admire you very much.

IMO, you are one of the deepest thinkers we have. I have felt blessed

many times to be able to be a fly-on-the-wall - - listening in to your

conversations. Thanks bunches for all that you do.

 

Warmly, John

============================================

Therese Hamilton wrote:

>

>

> At 07:40 AM 8/9/09 -0400, Dr. John D. Andre wrote:

> >

> >As for the Tropical vs. Sidereal debate . . . there are actually 3

> >potential answers: Tropical, Sidereal, or both. I am a both person. I

> >have seen time and time again that both work...

>

> Hello John,

>

> I believe your view is the most common one regarding zodiacs. But if both

> zodiacs work, then you have to find an explanation for tropical sign

> traits

> that aren't related to the ruling and exalted planets.

>

> How do you explain, for example, that the observed traits of tropical

> Taurus are the antithesis of Venus (lord of Taurus) and the Moon (exalted

> in Taurus)? Yes, tropical Taurus is said to be " fixed, " but why is its

> fixidity stronger than the symbolism of the ruling and exalted planets?

>

> Why does the seasonal symbolism work only in the northern hemisphere?

>

> Why is tropical Virgo really not very Mercurial, so much so that

> astrologers continually suggest new rulers for the sign?

>

> Why is a sign ruled by Mars (Scorpio) so interested in one-to-one

> relationships? Mars is the war god, much more at home with conflict.

>

> Why isn't tropical Pisces, ruled by Jupiter until recently, outgoing and

> blustery, at home with socializing and groups?

>

> >You wrote: Granted, our human nature

> >wants to know which is THE correct and proper one. I find that in order

> >to work with both, I need to settle into a comfortable kind of

> >'not-knowingness' - it seems to be almost a Zen kinda thing...

>

> Well, that effectively shuts down the analytical mind, doesn't it? In that

> state any belief is seemingly possible. Is astrology meant to operate

> without reason?

>

> >Over the years I've spent some time thinking about the Two Skies and how

> >they were at a given point in time the same - and then began to evolve

> >into two distinct constructs. I wonder if at that 'point-of-beginning'

> >there was not a kind of a wrinkle in time that carried with it the

> >opportunity for birthing a duality from a singularity.

>

> I'm sorry--that paragraph is a bit too Neptunian for me to find a

> response.

> Being a pragmatist, I have to stay with how we can actually see the signs

> operate--what we observe in ourselves and our fellow human beings--how the

> actual symbolism works out.

>

> Yes, I too have a strong Neptunian influence, but my pragmatic self seems

> to be stronger. Actually, now it's time for my two hours of daily

> meditation, so I'll check back here later!

>

> Many thanks for the discussion.

>

> Blessings,

> Therese

>

>

>

>

> __________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de

> firmas de virus 4320 (20090809) __________

>

> ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

>

> http://www.eset.com

 

 

__________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de

virus 4320 (20090809) __________

 

ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

 

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

At 05:30 PM 8/9/09 -0400, John wrote:

>

>IMEx (in my experience), my view is only held by a very small percentage

>of the astrologers.

 

Hmmm...we must frequent different astrological forums, as I know quite a

few who say " both systems work. " This seems to be expecially true of

tropical-to-Jyotish transfers.

 

>Speaking here as a majority of one, I will say that IMEx both sets of

>systems seem to work. I know Tropical astrologers who give some very

>fine and comprehensive reading. Likewise can be said for Sidereal and

>Vedic folks...

 

Yes, but this begs the question. Of course any truly competent astrologer

makes his or her preferred system " work. " Counseling astrology is, after

all, an intuitive attunement with the client. And so much of astrology now

is mainly aspects, which are similar in any zodiac.

 

>It seems to me that at this point in time our collective ignorance still

outweighs our collective knowledge.

 

In that we are in total agreement!

 

> I have observed your mind through your writing for quite a while and

admire you very much. IMO, you are one of the deepest thinkers we have. I

have felt blessed

>many times to be able to be a fly-on-the-wall - - listening in to your

>conversations. Thanks bunches for all that you do.

 

Thanks so much, John, but my age is beginning to show. I find that often

I'm not willing to " think deeply " on astrological concepts anymore.

(However, you're much more than " a fly-on-the wall! " ) Take for example, Sir

Robert Schmidt's recently published DEFINITIONS AND FOUNDATIONS, the first

published book in his Hellenistic series of (gulp!) 30 volumes.

 

I find the entire subject of Hellenistic astrology fascinating, but after a

few paragraphs of this volume and trying to absorb Mr. Schmidt's exhaustive

notes, I find I'll make an excuse to go work in the garden or take a walk

or inolve myself in chores. Yes, the concepts in that book are extremely

important for astrologers, but...sigh...meditation is easier! (By the way,

that's a beautifully published book. As a r, I bought the

hardback. From the artistic point of view, the book is lovely, not to

mention the content.)

 

So, let's take a stab at the questions I asked...??

 

It does seem to me that the tropical signs have become disconnected from

ruling and exalted planets, so that those planets and their symbolism

really do seem to belong only to the sidereal zodiac. Then the tropical

zodiac becomes a different entity entirely. I think this is why the

cardinal-fixed-mutable and fire-earth-air-water symbolism has been so much

emphasized: the planets don't relate tropically anymore.

 

Blessings,

Therese

[Guest guest]

I'd like to offer some casual comments here, " casual " meaning that I haven't

thought it all out yet and am just mind-dumping. Therese noted that so much of

astrology seems related to planets and their aspects --- planet-stuff being both

the most dynamic components of our charts and somewhat separated from the zodiac

question.

 

If we agree (to a large extent) that a natal chart is a natal chart in

either/any zodiac and can be interpreted in terms of planets in houses and

planets in aspect, then the next statement will seem quite valid. Transits and

Progressions seem to be the mainstream of Tropical Astrology, and these can

continue the utilization of planets and aspects as used in the natal chart.

 

I see those mainstream tropical astrologers, as a " group " , using natal and

progressed charts as being distinct from other groups such as the newest fad

group pursuing Helenistic practices, or the last-newest fad group pursuing Vedic

astrology. In the past we had the mid-point fad group, then the Uranian fad

group and the Sabian/Arabaian Parts fad groups, etc. And, let's not forget the

'70s and '80s Sidereal fad group.

 

I have to ask, do astrologers and astro-students pursue new astrological

practices because the invest time and fail to reach their expectations of

skills/capabilities in whatever they were studying?

 

On another subject: I'll say this about astrology, the effort in writing a book

teaches the author more than any reader is likely to gain from the book. The

process of exactly defining just what you mean about any given topic takes you

through an extensive review process and helps to refine just what it is that you

want to say. My book uses simple techniques and couches them within a " system "

that links the ideas and practices together in a logical approach. Casting it

is as " precession-corrected astrology " will permit Tropical astrologers and

students to be introduced to Sidereal techniques.

 

Strict Siderealists may not like this, but this is the " selling " approach that

should have been done by someone else long ago, in my opinion. I'm starting the

planning of a second book even before this book is reviewed and tweaked for

publication. If the community of Sidereal astrologers shrinks below the 50 or

100 current practitioners in the U.S., then the whole thing will die away.

Survival requires that we make an effort. I just had to say that. Dave.

[Guest guest]

At 01:52 AM 8/10/09 -0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

>

>I see those mainstream tropical astrologers, as a " group " , using natal and

progressed charts as being distinct from other groups such as the newest

fad group pursuing Helenistic practices, or the last-newest fad group

pursuing Vedic astrology. In the past we had the mid-point fad group, then

the Uranian fad group and the Sabian/Arabaian Parts fad groups, etc. And,

let's not forget the '70s and '80s Sidereal fad group.

 

Hi Dave,

 

I think the best way of viewing these so-called " fad " groups is that they

aren't fads so much as new developments. Of course the Jyotish/Vedic

movement has done a great deal to introduce the sidereal zodiac in the

west--something that western sidereal astrology never managed to do. It was

too highly technical for the tropical community to digest. Now one can go

on any forum, and we find Jyotish astrologers discussing charts right along

with tropical astrologers. That's progress!!

 

Fads come and go, but many astrologers have permanently incorporated some

of those new developments in their day-to-day work. True, too much of the

" new " can lead to astrological indigestion. This is happening too.

 

Also I think as human beings we're always interested in new vistas and

exploration. And we all know there's a lacking in our predictive abiility,

so on to the next discovery to see if that helps.

 

>[Dave wrote:] " On another subject: I'll say this about astrology, the

effort in writing a book teaches the author more than any reader is likely

to gain from the book. "

 

Yes, the discipline and review are great for brain power and careful thinking!

 

>[Dave wrote:] ... I'm starting the planning of a second book even before

this book is reviewed and tweaked for publication. If the community of

Sidereal astrologers shrinks below the 50 or 100 current practitioners in

the U.S., then the whole thing will die away.

 

Hmmm...I thought we were down to maybe 20 western sidereal astrologers who

are practicing. Most have incorporated Jyotish principles into their work,

or gone totally over to India's astrology--or combine Jyotish with tropical

principles. Even with computers, western sidereal astrology is still seen

as highly technical by the majority of astrologers. I'm not saying this is

a good thing, but astrologers today are still mainly self-taught and /or

have attended a few conferences. They lack the discipline of a structured

study program.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese,

I would say that the merit in Ciro's book, for Sidereal astrologers, is

primarily in the transits to natal category. His house and angularity points

would be disregarded by Siderealists who read his book for the most part. After

all, there appears to be some strong contradictions in that area. As I noted,

it was a curiosity issue for me as he had posted on the NCGR Solar Returns Study

Group site that I ran for awhile.

 

You say there may only be 20 or so Sidereal astrologers of the Fagan school? Oh

well, like I said, there was nobody who could pick up the reins after his

passing such that a popular sell-job could be done. It is all so simple once you

streamline the math and throw out all of the false starts that he explored and

which so many others slavishly followed as if they were added to Moses' tablets

of stone.

 

" Modern day Sidereal Practice seems to come down to the Solar and Lunar returns

and the derived charts they can support, all of it for predictive purposes as we

look at transits to angular positions in cyclic charts. " Yet, for those who

look, the impact of the changes in timing and chart-angles yields such

astounding results.

 

You are quite right in saying that " fads " can represent progress and that they

do leave a residue of useful tools and knowledge behind them. Yet, I find so

many who post on the Internet that are so caught up in the latest trivia without

having their basics in place. For them, fads are distractions and contribute to

a drying-up of the potential talent pool before they ever get started.

 

Dave.

[Guest guest]

At 06:56 PM 8/10/09 -0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

>

>You say there may only be 20 or so Sidereal astrologers of the Fagan

school? Oh well, like I said, there was nobody who could pick up the reins

after his passing such that a popular sell-job could be done.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Actully, it looked like James Eshelman was going to be the sidereal torch

bearer, but I think he got sidetracked into an occult groupe--forget the

name of the group. Then recently he's started his sidereal site, but there

is so much lost time in between then and now that much on the site is

disconnected from contemporary research findings and translations. Some of

the material is more or less out of date. There's been a total break in

continuity for western sidereal astrology. As you said, just a few

followers of the tablets in stone.

 

>[You wrote:] You are quite right in saying that " fads " can represent

progress and that they do leave a residue of useful tools and knowledge

behind them. Yet, I find so many who post on the Internet that are so

caught up in the latest trivia without having their basics in place.

 

This is only too true even on the so-called professional sites. For

example, on the NCGR forum, there have been extensive posts and bickering

on the recent eclipse and a little asteroid called " Pecker. " It's so sad to

see astrologers involved in trivia when so much ground-breaking research

needs to be done. This is why I've pretty much withdrawn from the community

" out there. "

 

If you count the recent posts on some sites, you'll find those discussing

Sedna and Eris (as one example) in greater numbers than the still

much-to-be-discovered-about traditional planets. It's like, " Oh, those same

old planets! Let's look at the new [very small] bodies in space. They're a

lot more interesting. "

 

So...today astrology isn't a profession. It's only an occupation and

interesting study for a very diverse group of students with varying

educational backgrounds.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Dear Therese and you as well Dave,

I really enjoy your posts although admittedly I have not studied

Sidereal Astrology more than a bit here and there. It just doesn't

resonate within me and that is the problem with not pursuing those

studies; however I do have an open mind and that is why I keep reading,

looking for that spark which will lead me further into it.

 

Since I am one of those astrologers kidding around on NCGR about

asteroid PECKER, I have to defend us. For me it is a joke with a bit of

rebellion against the astrologers who will not consider the whole

picture, and I feel the asteroids do contribute to the picture in a

little way. When they all form in very synchronous spots in the chart it

does make one wonder. Being a triple Aqua, I am very open to the new.

There is no way I feel Capricorn in any way and I would be considered

that in Sidereal Astro.

Morgana

 

 

 

Therese Hamilton wrote:

> At 06:56 PM 8/10/09 -0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

>

>> You say there may only be 20 or so Sidereal astrologers of the Fagan

>>

> school? Oh well, like I said, there was nobody who could pick up the reins

> after his passing such that a popular sell-job could be done.

>

> Hi Dave,

>

>

>

>

> If you count the recent posts on some sites, you'll find those discussing

> Sedna and Eris (as one example) in greater numbers than the still

> much-to-be-discovered-about traditional planets. It's like, " Oh, those same

> old planets! Let's look at the new [very small] bodies in space. They're a

> lot more interesting. "

>

> So...today astrology isn't a profession. It's only an occupation and

> interesting study for a very diverse group of students with varying

> educational backgrounds.

>

> Therese

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 03:06 PM 8/10/09 -0700, Morgana wrote:

 

>...admittedly I have not studied

>Sidereal Astrology more than a bit here and there. It just doesn't

>resonate within me and that is the problem with not pursuing those

>studies;

 

Hi Morgana,

 

Nice to see you here! I think the reason sidereal astrology doesn't

resonate with you and others is that it's never been presented in a

" user-friendly " way. And the problem with Jyotish/Vedic is those square

charts which I myself never could really read well. The energy doesn't flow

right in them. (Though I use many Jyotish techniques and the Jyotish zodiac.)

 

> Being a triple Aqua, I am very open to the new.

>There is no way I feel Capricorn in any way and I would be considered

>that in Sidereal Astro.

 

Just a reminder that sidereal Cap **IS** tropical Aquarius. Sidereal Cap

isn't like the structure conscious tropical Cap. The Roman Saturn was the

true democrat who brought the warring tribes together to live in peace.

Jupiter is the planet that's happy with law and order and structure. Saturn

has no class consciousness, but Jupiter certainly does. This is an example

of why ruling planets work best in the sidereal zodiac in my opinion.

 

Repeat: The sidereal signs are entirely different than the tropical signs

of the same name, some modern Vedic authors notwithstanding. But

always--the planets rule.

 

Blessings,

Therese