Sidereal ruminations

[Guest guest]

Hi, Therese,

 

Thanks for the warm welcome to this group.

 

I agree totally with your sidereal vs tropical observations. After having mulled

that dichotomy over for years I felt now was the time to work it out and do some

research and nail down which was " the real astrology. "

 

Last year I purchased Parashara's Light (Vedic astrology program) and upgraded

my AstroDataBank, joining their in the process, but they seem to be

only Tropically-minded so I ended up feeling I would have to go it alone.

 

From what [little] I've seen, I think the so-called Vedic is ridiculous and I

really wasted my money. What I really think is the right way is a Western

sidereal approach, in other words, astrology as we've learned it but using

sidereal coordinates. This will make transits and returns astronomically

correct.

 

But, as you intimate, there is the issue of the interpretation of the signs. I

am inclined to let the Tropicalists keep their sign interpretations as-is:

surely they've had enough time and feedback to get them plausibly acceptable

with their clients. But has this necessarily blurred the definitions between the

once-traditional adjacent signs? I suspect so.

 

I like your approach for the [sidereal] Constellations [i know they're

approximate] along the lines of rulers and exalted, etc. But where do you go

with the " modern " ruler system using the outer planets? (I think that Tobey had

some interesting observations along these lines.)

 

I always had great respect for the " elemental " approach to interpretation a la

Stephen Arroyo's " Astrology, Psychology, and the Four Elements. "

 

But then again, in all fairness, my present viewpoint might just be overly

influenced by my age. Thirty years ago my Tropical chart was plausible for me,

but as I recall my Sidereal was not. Now I think differently.

 

What does this mean? I think it means that one of my earlier astro theories

might be valid: The unevolved " animal " " earthy " individual would correspond to

their Tropical chart; the more evolved mature individual graduates to their

Sidereal chart, and perhaps later the Heliocentric [of course Sidereal] chart

would answer for their " spiritual " self.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Best Regards,

Don

 

-

therese hamilton

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:39 PM

Re: new member

 

 

At 09:31 PM 7/24/06 -0000, Don Ridgway wrote:

>Hi, everyone, I just signed up. I have been interested and involved

>with astrology for over a quarter of a century. I started out studying

>Bradley, de Luce and Tobey. Then I leaned Tropical because that's

>where all the action seemed to be. I was so interested in studying and

>researching and testing astrology--I have even programmed my own

>astrology program--that over the years I accumulated so many astrology

>report programs that I put up a web site to sell some at

><http://www.astrousa.com> . Recently I'm rethinking Tropical and did

>my chart sidereally and I really think that is the " real me. " So here

>I am.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Hi Don,

 

You have quite an astrological background that goes way back! The sidereal

camp(s) are in a state of flux today as many astrologers are combining the

astrology of India with western siderealism. The old standbys of the

western sidereal system are solar and lunar returns, but natal astrology is

being more influenced by India's astrology.

 

There's a lot of controversy about just how to interpret sidereal signs.

The best way to understand sidereal signs is to think of the ruling and

exalted planets. I believe (as did Cyril Fagan and other early

siderealists) that Tropical astrologers are seeing the sidereal signs under

another name. Thus the traits of Tropical Libra, for example, really belong

to sidereal Virgo.

 

That sign is mentally inclined (Mercury) and capable of seeing so many

sides to a question that the result is often indecision. Virgo is a mutable

sign, perhaps the most mutable of all signs since its lord is Mercury. It's

a sign that is great for establishing communication links (Mercury)

between people and groups.

 

Anyhow, that's just one example. We hope you have time to post here.

 

Blessings,

 

Therese

Acting Moderator

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> " 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:

>/

>

[Guest guest]

At 04:57 PM 7/25/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>Last year I purchased Parashara's Light (Vedic astrology program) and

upgraded my AstroDataBank, joining their in the process, but

they seem to be only Tropically-minded so I ended up feeling I would have

to go it alone.

 

Hi Don,

 

Yes, the ADB group is almost entirely Tropoical. I'm not sure what the

response would be if a few people started to post in the sidereal zodiac.

I've been too busy to post, and the heat this summer has been awful--makes

thinking difficult. Broken records all over the country.

 

>From what [little] I've seen, I think the so-called Vedic is ridiculous

and I really wasted my money.

 

Actually you can get some good info from the Parashara's Light program. The

first step is to set the program for circular charts and glyphs, and then

calculate the navamsa along with the natal chart. Or you can just print the

charts from a western program. I use Solar Fire more than PL. But PL will

do shad bala (Planetary strength), and sometimes that's really useful. Also

the dasa periods can be enlightening if you know how to use them.

 

>What I really think is the right way is a Western sidereal approach, in

other words, astrology as we've learned it but using sidereal coordinates.

This will make transits and returns astronomically correct.

 

PL will do western type returns as well as transits. I think there's an

animated transit module so you can watch the planets move around a natal

chart--circular of course.

 

>But, as you intimate, there is the issue of the interpretation of the signs.

 

If you haven't checked the Lost Zodiac site, please take a look if you have

time:

 

http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

 

It's strange that siderealists have basically said goodby to the view of

signs as held by Fagan and other early siderealists. I've tried to build on

their ideas. Some like the approach, and others seem to think it's some

kind of heresy.

 

>I am inclined to let the Tropicalists keep their sign interpretations

as-is: surely they've had enough time and feedback to get them plausibly

acceptable with their clients.

 

As far as I'm concerned, they've done a pretty good job of seeing the

sidereal signs, but trying to fit them into the Tropical perspective. Then

they don't notice that the final degrees of their signs are more like the

next sign because they're seeing the sidereal boundaries.

 

>But has this necessarily blurred the definitions between the

once-traditional adjacent signs? I suspect so.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that comment?

 

>I like your approach for the [sidereal] Constellations...

 

We really have to call them signs because with the great astronomy programs

we have now, it only confuses the issue to call 30 degree signs

'constellations.' It makes us look less than informed and is food for

arguments from both astronomers and tropoical astrologers.

 

>[i know they're approximate] along the lines of rulers and exalted, etc.

But where do you go with the " modern " ruler system using the outer planets?

 

I think you'll find that the signs reflect their modern rulers along with

the ancient ones. Take sidereal Aries, which the tropical people call

'Taurus.' The sign tends to produce loners who don't necessarily

communicate much with others. The siderealists always said Pluto was the

loner. Sidereal Aries just isn't socially inclinced, but can be very

successful because Aries is the Sun's exaltation sign.

 

Then there's Pisces, a sign that can have a huge imagination--Neptune.

Since you have ADB, try pulling up each sign with a Sun-based stellium in

the 10th. You start to get a feel for the activities associated with each

sign. I use the 10th because that sign as measured from the ascendant is

very visible. Some prefer to use the ascendant. It's interesting to try both.

 

>I always had great respect for the " elemental " approach to interpretation

a la Stephen Arroyo's " Astrology, Psychology, and the Four Elements. "

 

If you have time, scan the element article (Part 3) on the Lost Zodiac

site. (Feel free to contest the ideas in the article...) As it turns out

(based on the Greek and Hellenistic research), the signs were mis-named

using the elements. They should be hot (fire), cold (air), wet (water) and

dry (earth). Somewhere back in our archives is a discussion of elements and

the words associated with them. Ptolemy didn't divide the signs by element.

He used the hot/cold/wet/dry labels.

 

Hot and cold are 'active.' Wet is fluid and emotional; Dry is mental and

algebraic. All this dredged up by Project Hindsight and Arhat. These

terms/traits only work in the sidereal zodiac.

 

>>What does this mean? I think it means that one of my earlier astro

theories might be valid: The unevolved " animal " " earthy " individual would

correspond to their Tropical chart; the more evolved mature individual

graduates to their Sidereal chart, and perhaps later the Heliocentric [of

course Sidereal] chart would answer for their " spiritual " self.

 

I think the sidereal chart (along with the varga or divisional charts)

encompasses our entire selves and the Tropical chart is just wrong! Just my

(strong) opinion... I used the Tropoical zodiac for 10 years before western

siderealists introduced me to the sidereal zodiac.

 

Best,

 

Therese