Zodiacal signs

[Guest guest]

Francois wrote:

> ...About the zodiacal signs, I would like to know how we can grasp the

> correct meaning they have? ...I don't see what IS the difference in

> the signs in sidereal or tropical astrology as to how to define them.

 

Hi Francois,

Good questions. One way to think about the two zodiacs is to consider

them in a cosmological perspective. If the earth's axis didn't wobble

over time and stayed perpendicular to the ecliptic, there would be only

one zodiac. But since the tilt of the earth's axis in relation to the

sun is what creates the tropical zodiac, the tropical is therefore

defined by the earth.

 

The sidereal zodiac, on the other hand, is defined by the stars, in that

a given point in the starry heavens determines the origin of the 30

degree segments of the sky. So already the sidereal is seen to be a

more comprehensive symbology. It takes into account the cosmic circuit

beyond the planets; whereas the tropical, as a property of the earth, is

limited to the life and cyclic phases of our globe and its inhabitants.

 

The tropical zodiac is a projection outwards from the earth entity, and

describes imaginary space. From it come our subjective interpretations

of the objective events given by the sidereal. Western tropical

emphasizes subjective meaning, and so is more appropos to varying

interpretations that explore how or why things happen, along with other

symbolic and less demonstrable approaches to the chart.

 

The sidereal presents the earth's perspective in a more literal or

self-evident way, in contrast to the non-literal or metaphorical

emphasis of the tropical. Hindu or western sidereal emphasizes events

and the things in themselves, tending more towards the fatedness or

givenness of individual and collective experience. The sidereal

provides the forms that the psyche will operate with.

 

My experience is that both the event itself and its interpretive or

subjective meaning are needed and must be present. And in fact, both

are present, cosmologically speaking.

 

The medieval astrologers thought of the different parts of the cosmos as

layers of existence or reality. According to this view, the two zodiacs

would represent two different hierarchical levels. The tropical would

be entirely sub-lunar and oriented towards supporting the life of and on

the earth. The sidereal would be " of the stars " , also representing the

earth's view, but from the broader perspective of the earth's view of

the sun's life (which is itself a star). The planetary spheres would be

the intermediaries between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs, providing

linkages between and manifesting them both.

 

In this vertical view of levels, the sidereal would be qualitatively

prior to the tropical, because it rests higher in the scheme. This

special quality of the sidereal makes a certain amount of sense to me.

After all, we could site a different tropical zodiac for every planet in

the Solar System, each one being defined as the earth is by the unique

tilt of its axis to the sun. In other words, a Venus-centric chart

would have its own tropical zodiac, as would all the others.

 

But there can only be one sidereal. The stars are so incredibly far

away from us that they hold the same essential angular relations to

every part of the Solar System as they do to us.

 

-Greg