Guest guest Posted March 30, 2001 Report Share Posted March 30, 2001 Dear Terese Hamilton,have confidence on your own perceptions.Test your persons. All who have taken birth on the 19.century the ayanamsa in 30 degrees backwardas. You do not need any overlappings. Taurus is Aries,Gemini is Taurus. Hanni Wienkoop -----Alkuperäinen viesti----- Lähettäjä: Terese Hamilton <eastwest Vastaanottaja: Päivä: 9. maaliskuuta 2001 5:10 Aihe: Re: Signs >At 09:34 PM 3/8/01 -0300, you wrote: > >> This makes things easier. You're saying that to read Aries in sidereal I >>should take the Characteristics of Tropical Pisces is That? And that this >>makes more accurate the rulership of the houses is that? > >Not Pisces, TAURUS. The sidereal zodiac is one sign behind, except for 5-7 >degrees, depending on the year and ayanamsa. The last degrees of the >tropical signs will tend to behave like the next tropical sign because of >tropical/sidereal overlap. So sidereal Aries will be like tropical Taurus. >But the end of tropical Taurus will be more like tropical Gemini (which is >sidereal Taurus.) Confusing??! You bet! It makes it easier to draw out the >12 signs in a row (12 boxes) and then line up the sidereal signs >underneath, leaving an offset of 5-6 degrees. Like this: > >---Trop TAU-------!---Trop GEM------!---Trop CAN-----! >------------------!-----------------!----------------! > > >----Sid ARI----!------Sid TAU----!-----Sid GEM-----! >---------------!-----------------!-----------------! > >The overlap of the two zodiacs is at the beginning of the sidereal signs >and the end of the tropical signs. If there is really ONLY a sidereal >zodiac, the last degrees of tropical signs will carry the traits of the >next tropical sign, because we'd really be seeing the sidereal zodiac. > >But if there's really ONLY a tropical zodiac, then the beginnings of >sidereal signs would act like the preceding sign, because the tropical >zodiac would be reflected in the non-existent sidereal signs. > > >> Well, i could make a change in paradigm, but one thing is still strange. >>The characteristics of the sign are linked to the elements. It is hard to >>think about an Aries with the Water characteristics of Pisces. just because >>it is ruled by Mars. > >That is a very good and valid point. The elements have to be re-defined in >the sidereal zodiac. The so-called element labels were given by Ptolemy in >the 2nd century. Before that the sign elements were irregular. Aquarius, >for example, was a water sign because of the " watery " stars of the >constellation. > >It's easier to think of the signs in the sidereal zodiac as TRIADS or >TRIPLICITIES. So the Mars triad (Aries, Leo, Sag) has to do with will >power, determination, and physical plane skills, all of which Mars rules. >Mars is FIRE, and fire transmutes one element to another (i.e. will power >and mind power can change lives.) > >This gets rather complex because it involves a mental shift. I've written >articles on sidereal polarity (male/female) and the triads. If yuou'd like >a photocopy, please send your mailing address. Or I might be able to post >the articles here in parts. But I don't want to hog the discussion site. > >> The Characteristics of the planets are the same? > >Yes, the planets are the planets. All the signs do is help or hinder the >exprsession of the planets. > >Terrie (Terese) > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > >Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2001 Report Share Posted March 30, 2001 Hello, everyone. For transits of the transpersonal planets, I find that they're most apt to kick in when either conjuncting or tightly squaring the angles in a Sidereal Solar Quotidian or Progressed Sidereal Solar Return. Later, Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2001 Report Share Posted March 30, 2001 Hi everybody! Do any of you have ideas on whether it is better to check transits against natal or relocated angles (in case one has moved away from the birth place)? It seems that outside " the siderealist circle " most astrologers check transits simply against natal angles. I have the Solar & Lunar Returns book by Donald Bradley and am aware that he strongly recommended watching transits to relocated chart angles, instead. Does your experience agree with him? I myself have used relocated angles in transit analysis for a long time, but still am not sure which system works best. Could it be that general life developments are better symbolized by transits to natal angles & house structure (as according to theories of Grant Lewi, for instance), while clear and concrete events might best be seen by transits to relocated angles? Looking forward to read your expert opinions, Risto Vartiainen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2001 Report Share Posted March 31, 2001 Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:39:41 EST, aumgn93 kirjoitti: >Hello, everyone. > >For transits of the transpersonal planets, I find that they're most apt to >kick in when either conjuncting or tightly squaring the angles in a Sidereal >Solar Quotidian or Progressed Sidereal Solar Return. Kevin, I guess this solution will free one from considering the question on whether to watch transits to natal or relocated angles, since Quotidian and PSSR angles are always local. However, I am still interested in people's opinions on the relative merits of using relocated charts in any analysis in which natal is included. Myself, I would progress, direct and primary direct planets using birthplace angles, but with transits I am not sure. Then of course, there is the whole question of how the natal temperament might change (over a longish period of time) to reflect the changed emphasis due to relocation... foreground planets and background planets switching places, midpoints involving the angles shifting far from their birthplace equivalents etc. - But the effects of relocating to natal analysis is a complicated matter. Initially I would be satisfied if I just could make up my mind about its effects on regular transit timing to birth charts. Risto V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2001 Report Share Posted April 1, 2001 , " Hanni Wienkoop " <hanni.wienkoop@s...> wrote: > Dear Terese Hamilton,have confidence on your own perceptions.Test your > persons. All who have taken birth on the 19.century the ayanamsa in 30 degrees backwardas. You do not need any overlappings. Taurus is Aries,Gemini is Taurus. > Hanni Wienkoop > > Dear Hanni, It depends on what you use as an Aynamsa whether or not the difference between the two Zodiacs is 30 degrees or not. There are different Ayanamsas in use and I do not know if there is one that is exactly 30 degrees different from the Tropical longitudes, but there may be, and if there is, then indeed, there would be no overlapping of signs. Sincerely, Bob 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.