Sidereal Sign Meanings

[Guest guest]

While visiting Jim Eshelman's site http://www.solunars.net/index.php

I found that he had posted Donald Bradley's notes on Sidereal Sign

meanings. While not complete in terms of concise writing style, the

notes consist of a series of comments for each sign. I was wondering

if others were generally aware of these notes and what your assessment

of them was. Dave

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave and thanks for the link, it's interesting. I'll post this to a

Finnish sidereal forum, I'm sure they will be interested too.

 

Best, Sari

 

 

 

-

" David Monroe " <dadsnook

 

Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:33 PM

Sidereal Sign Meanings

 

 

> While visiting Jim Eshelman's site http://www.solunars.net/index.php

> I found that he had posted Donald Bradley's notes on Sidereal Sign

> meanings. While not complete in terms of concise writing style, the

> notes consist of a series of comments for each sign. I was wondering

> if others were generally aware of these notes and what your assessment

> of them was. Dave

[Guest guest]

At 12:33 PM 12/6/07 -0000, Dave wrote:

>While visiting Jim Eshelman's site http://www.solunars.net/index.php

> I found that he had posted Donald Bradley's notes on Sidereal Sign

>meanings. While not complete in terms of concise writing style, the

>notes consist of a series of comments for each sign. I was wondering

>if others were generally aware of these notes and what your assessment

>of them was.

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

 

Dave, are you talking about the parts of the site headed 'Sun in the

Constellations' or 'Moon in the constellaitons?'

 

First of all, I presume Jim Eshelman is referring to the sidereal signs??

Then why is he calling them constellations?? Constellations are specific

star patterns in the sky used by both astronomers and astrologers.

 

Has he mixed in Bradley's meanings with his own? There is a whole lot of

information under those constellation meanings. I didn't see any special

section dedicated to Bradley's words. Am I missing something?? (I admit I

haven't had much time this morning to carefully check the site.)

 

I generally question any posted sidereal sign interpretations. There

doesn't seem to be any order or rationale in the few sun-sign

(constellations??) interpretations I scanned on that site. Some info seemed

O.K., some **way** off the mark in my experience. Where did it all come

from? We've reached the time periond in this century where we have to give

some rationale and concrete examples (individual horoscopes) for any sign

meanings we might suggest. We can't just post information without backing

it up with examples and reasoning.

 

Just a quick scan seemed to suggest that he was attaching deeper planetary

psychology to the signs (constellations?). This only works in a limited

way; planetary psychology can't be moved verbatim from planet to sign in

either zodiac.

 

With sidereal signs we should be doing a lot of intensive research using

existing data bases. I've found that sign meanings can be quite shallow

when compared to planetary psychology.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Hi, Therese,

 

I checked out the site also and took away generally the same impression. (But I

like the site and thought he did a good job.)

 

Regarding Tropical/Sidereal sign/constellation definitions I'm beginning to feel

like a lost sheep. (No, I'm not an Aries. It goes like this: around 2000

years ago the Tropical Zodiacal signs more or less aligned with the

constellations of the same name. This was a seminal period in astrology and from

then to the present we've had a history of delineations to learn from. But, wait

a minute, the Tropical signs have shifted almost 24 degrees and the definitions

with them. I'm a believer in astrology but I have no defense for that when I'm

challenged by some skeptic or other.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that some definitive research needs to

be done in this regard. First, I was puzzled which zodiac to use, then that was

compounded by the fact that I couldn't find any authoritively definitively

different interpretations for Taurus-the-Tropical-sign vs.

Taurus-the-Sidereal-constellation, except one is more physical and the other is

more spiritual, which is too much of a dichotomy for me to be happy with.

 

But I would like to throw out one fact for consideration by members here and

that is that now the last roughly six degrees of a Tropical sign are identical

to the roughly first six degrees of the constellation of the same name. In other

words, the Tropical zodiac and the Sidereal zodiac share roughly the same exact

6 degrees in space. So, shouldn't the effects--the interpretation--be the same?

 

That, to me, is the area we can research. For the moment, disregarding how

planets blur the sign definitions as you mentioned, study everybody whose Sun is

in the last 6-7 degrees of a Tropical sign because they are also in the first

6-7 degrees of the Sidereal " sign. " (I recall there might be a word or phrase

that describes this relation but it escapes me.) Could that give us somewhere to

start/verify in delineations of Sidereal " signs. "

 

When I look at someone's Tropical chart and I see that the planet (or Sun or

Moon) is in the last 6 degrees of some sign I always think to myself that it is

*definitely* in that sign. In other words, for example, if someone's Sun is at

26 degrees Capricorn they are *definitely* a Sea-goat, because if you adjust for

precession that Sun will still be in Capricorn.

 

Is this an idea whose time has come?

 

Best Regards,

Don

 

-

Therese Hamilton

Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:56 AM

Re: Sidereal Sign Meanings

 

 

At 12:33 PM 12/6/07 -0000, Dave wrote:

>While visiting Jim Eshelman's site http://www.solunars.net/index.php

> I found that he had posted Donald Bradley's notes on Sidereal Sign

>meanings. While not complete in terms of concise writing style, the

>notes consist of a series of comments for each sign. I was wondering

>if others were generally aware of these notes and what your assessment

>of them was.

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

 

Dave, are you talking about the parts of the site headed 'Sun in the

Constellations' or 'Moon in the constellaitons?'

 

First of all, I presume Jim Eshelman is referring to the sidereal signs??

Then why is he calling them constellations?? Constellations are specific

star patterns in the sky used by both astronomers and astrologers.

 

Has he mixed in Bradley's meanings with his own? There is a whole lot of

information under those constellation meanings. I didn't see any special

section dedicated to Bradley's words. Am I missing something?? (I admit I

haven't had much time this morning to carefully check the site.)

 

I generally question any posted sidereal sign interpretations. There

doesn't seem to be any order or rationale in the few sun-sign

(constellations??) interpretations I scanned on that site. Some info seemed

O.K., some **way** off the mark in my experience. Where did it all come

from? We've reached the time periond in this century where we have to give

some rationale and concrete examples (individual horoscopes) for any sign

meanings we might suggest. We can't just post information without backing

it up with examples and reasoning.

 

Just a quick scan seemed to suggest that he was attaching deeper planetary

psychology to the signs (constellations?). This only works in a limited

way; planetary psychology can't be moved verbatim from planet to sign in

either zodiac.

 

With sidereal signs we should be doing a lot of intensive research using

existing data bases. I've found that sign meanings can be quite shallow

when compared to planetary psychology.

 

Therese

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 02:34 PM 12/6/07 -0500, Scribe wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>

>I checked out the site also and took away generally the same impression.

(But I like the site and thought he did a good job.)

 

Yes, a lot of planning obviously went into the site.

 

>[scribe]Regarding Tropical/Sidereal sign/constellation definitions I'm

beginning to feel like a lost sheep. (No, I'm not an Aries. It goes

like this: around 2000 years ago the Tropical Zodiacal signs more or less

aligned with the constellations of the same name...

 

[Therese] Well, sort of. But Aries and Libra, for example, are very small

constellations, so in today's zodiac we have an entire fish from Pisces

including the alpha star in the cord taking up the early degrees of

sidereal Aries. And if you have a planet in roughly the first 20 degrees of

sidereal Libra, you're talking about that planet being aginst the backdrop

of Virgo's stars. This is why it's not at all accurate to call the sidereal

signs 'constellations.'

 

>[scribe]This was a seminal period in astrology and from then to the

present we've had a history of delineations to learn from...

 

[Therese] That's questionable also, because up until the time of Alan Leo

(19th-20th century cusp), the signs weren't delineated in a psychological

way. They were mainly used in India as references for planetary

dispositors, and in the west were mainly discussed in categories, such as

elements, qualities, masculine, feminine, etc. These categories were used

in horary astrology to tell, for example, whether the subject was a man or

a woman.

 

>[scribe] But, wait a minute, the Tropical signs have shifted almost 24

degrees and the definitions with them. I'm a believer in astrology but I

have no defense for that when I'm challenged by some skeptic or other.

>

>I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that some definitive research

needs to be done in this regard. First, I was puzzled which zodiac to use,

then that was compounded by the fact that I couldn't find any authoritively

definitively different interpretations for Taurus-the-Tropical-sign vs.

Taurus-the-Sidereal-constellation, except one is more physical and the

other is more spiritual, which is too much of a dichotomy for me to be

happy with...

 

[Therese] And anyhow, it ain't true!

 

>[scribe] But I would like to throw out one fact for consideration by

members here and that is that now the last roughly six degrees of a

Tropical sign are identical to the roughly first six degrees of the

constellation of the same name. In other words, the Tropical zodiac and the

Sidereal zodiac share roughly the same exact 6 degrees in space. So,

shouldn't the effects--the interpretation--be the same?

 

[Therese] The interpretation would be the same if in fact the sidereal

meanings were the same as the tropical meanings, but that isn't the way it

works. What we have instead is the final tropical degrees act like the

following tropical sign, which is really the preceding sidereal sign.

Confused? I've posted the Lost Zodiac URL enough times on this forum so

that most readers must be sick and tired of seeing it, but this is all

explained in the link below. Also there's an article on that site that

gives the preceise sidereal degrees in very early horoscopes.

 

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

 

>[scribe] That, to me, is the area we can research. For the moment,

disregarding how planets blur the sign definitions as you mentioned, study

everybody whose Sun is in the last 6-7 degrees of a Tropical sign because

they are also in the first 6-7 degrees of the Sidereal " sign. " (I recall

there might be a word or phrase that describes this relation but it escapes

me.) Could that give us somewhere to start/verify in delineations of

Sidereal " signs. "

 

[Therese] I've been saying that for many, many years, and it's on the Lost

Zodiac site.

 

>[scribe] When I look at someone's Tropical chart and I see that the planet

(or Sun or Moon) is in the last 6 degrees of some sign I always think to

myself that it is *definitely* in that sign.

 

[Therese] Actually they're in the next tropical sign which lies on top of

the earlier sidereal sign.

 

>[scribe] In other words, for example, if someone's Sun is at 26 degrees

Capricorn they are *definitely* a Sea-goat, because if you adjust for

precession that Sun will still be in Capricorn.

 

[Therese] Yes, that Sun is definitely in the sidereal sign called

'Capricorn.'

 

>[scribe] Is this an idea whose time has come?

 

[Therese] It came a long time ago when Cyril Fagan first suggested this

idea. But as far as I can see, I seem to be one of the very few who is a

champion of this cause; that is, that the tropical signs simply show us the

bleedthrough of the 'real' sidereal signs.

 

Some of the best sign observations we have are made by Tropical

astrologers. But as I see it, they're really only seeing the underlying

sidereal signs. But when tropical astrologers deal with theory only rather

than observation, that's when you'll see that the interpretation doesn't

check out.

 

But there is a great deal of variaton within a sign depending on the

background stars and constellations, the lunar mansions, and sub-divisions

of signs. About the only practical way an entire sign can be used is for

house and planetary dispositors. So a planet in Libra, for example, will be

further described by the position of Venus in the horoscope. The most

important variations within signs are linked to the lunar mansions. For

this variation, the Jyotish texts on the mansions are very helpful. Not

always accurate, but helpful nonetheless.

 

Best,

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest wrote:

>

> At 12:33 PM 12/6/07 -0000, Dave wrote:

> >While visiting Jim Eshelman's site http://www.solunars.net/index.php

> > I found that he had posted Donald Bradley's notes on Sidereal

Sign meanings. (snip)

>

THERESE wrote: Dave, are you talking about the parts of the site

headed 'Sun in the Constellations' or 'Moon in the constellaitons?'

>

REPLY: No. There is another posting that identifies itself as Donald

Bradley's notes. Often there are a dozen to 15 comments, each

numbered by Eshelman, that he copied from the actual notes left after

D.B.'s passing. They are much briefer than Eshelman's

" constellations " or his " inner planets " in the signs (out to Mars)

interpretations. Dave.

[Guest guest]

Can't find the postings, Dave. What heading are they under? I didn't see

any topic on the main page that mentioned Bradley. I admit the font on that

site is small on my little notebook screen. I looked, but didn't see

anything...

 

I *am* interested to see what Bradley said about the signs, and will no

doubt have some comments.

 

Thanks,

Therese

 

At 02:18 AM 12/7/07 -0000, Dave wrote:

 

>> At 12:33 PM 12/6/07 -0000, Dave wrote:

>> >While visiting Jim Eshelman's site http://www.solunars.net/index.php

>> > I found that he had posted Donald Bradley's notes on Sidereal

>Sign meanings. (snip)

>>

>THERESE wrote: Dave, are you talking about the parts of the site

>headed 'Sun in the Constellations' or 'Moon in the constellaitons?'

>>

>REPLY: No. There is another posting that identifies itself as Donald

>Bradley's notes. Often there are a dozen to 15 comments, each

>numbered by Eshelman, that he copied from the actual notes left after

>D.B.'s passing. They are much briefer than Eshelman's

> " constellations " or his " inner planets " in the signs (out to Mars)

>interpretations. Dave.

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest wrote: Can't find the postings, Dave. What heading are

they under? I didn't see any topic on the main page that mentioned

Bradley. (snip)

 

REPLY:

On the same page where Sun and Moon in Constellations are listed at

the top; look down the page under " topics. " The 7th topic is about

Garth Allens (aka Donald Bradley) notes on the signs. Dave

[Guest guest]

At 03:32 AM 12/7/07 -0000, Dave wrote:

>REPLY:

>[bradley's comments] are on the same page where Sun and Moon in

Constellations are listed atthe top; look down the page under " topics. "

The 7th topic is about

>Garth Allens (aka Donald Bradley) notes on the signs.

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

 

O.K., found them. I read Aries and copied the rest to check out tomorrow. I

have a triple sidereal Aries son, and he has nothing in common with

Bradley's comments. Why didn't Bradley just move the tropical meanings back

one sign??

 

A few months ago I tabulated the Sun in signs with planets near the 10th

cusp. I was surprised that Aries had the greatest number of actors and

actresses. I thought about it, and decided that maybe it was because the

Sun is exalted in Aries, so these people naturally 'shine' and gain

popularity...? Just a thought. Tomorrow I'll find the folder with this

research.

 

Oddly, Bradley says nothing about Mars, which is a major key to sidereal

Aries. Just a few words about a good Mars, and he would have described my

son. Aries is into Mars type activities. Why go all over the board when you

can get fairly accurate sign information by staying with activities related

to ruling and exalted planets?

 

Well, Bradley didn't have the AstroDatabank and other resources that we

have today. All we need is the discipline to collect data related to birth

charts.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Dave:

 

A slightly belated thanks for posting Jim's web site reference. All

this time wasn't sure whether Jim was still involved, or even

interested, in astrology!

 

Just call me an old-school siderealist, not too terribly attracted to

Jyotish (just a tad).

 

-Derek

 

 

, " David Monroe "

<dadsnook wrote:

>

> While visiting Jim Eshelman's site http://www.solunars.net/index.php

> I found that he had posted Donald Bradley's notes on Sidereal Sign

> meanings. While not complete in terms of concise writing style, the

> notes consist of a series of comments for each sign. I was wondering

> if others were generally aware of these notes and what your assessment

> of them was. Dave

>

[Guest guest]

At 01:39 AM 12/9/07 -0000, Derek wrote:

>Dave:

>

>A slightly belated thanks for posting Jim's web site reference. All

>this time wasn't sure whether Jim was still involved, or even

>interested, in astrology!

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

 

I think Jim was out of the loop for quite a while. He seemed to have

disappeared. His role in sidereal astrology was so important that the

movement seemed almost to have become extinct when he ceased being active,

at least in the public sense. So it's really nice to see that he's

returned. (Even if I don't especially agree with his sign interpretations...)

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Dave,

 

I've had a little time to look over Jim Eshelman's files, if you meant

the large zip file. He's much better on foreground planets and aspects.

(Although the traits he associates with foreground planets might belong to

the same planets in other locations.) The sidereal signs aren't in the same

category. There's so much there that just doesn't belong to signs of the

zodiac.

 

This is also a problem with writings on the tropical signs. Beginning with

Alan Leo and Charles Carter, so many planetary traits were transferred to

the signs. But the signs are much less complex than the planets. (Unless

you consider small unique areas that might be affected by fixed stars or

harmonics or terms/bounds or [if they exist] degree meanings.) But primary

psychology is in the planets. It's much better to ignore signs than to

attach complex meanings that aren't really there. So I don't blame you for

giving signs so little attention.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese, thank you for your reply. Yes, I saw the zip file and looked at it,

hoping to see material presented somewhat like the format the Fagan used ---

lengthy, wordy, etc. but interesting to read. I'm not sure that Eshelman's

notes would have made me pleased to have attended a seminar that used those

notes --- although we can't assume that the seminar reflected these collections

of views.

Jim has always been a gentleman on line and has answered any of the questions I

have posed. I have found many of his insights to be quite valuable. But, I

continue to be vexed by sign meanings.

 

You noted: " This is also a problem with writings on the tropical signs.

Beginning with Alan Leo and Charles Carter, so many planetary traits were

transferred to the signs. " I have also come to appreciate this situation. It

seems that a bandwagon of popular support and practice was started in that

period and this " template of application " provided a nice formula for

interpretation in that planets (actions, attitude) worked through signs

(modifiers through temperment, etc.) and expressed themselves in houses (areas

of living and concerns). We all adopted that as early-studies students because

almost every author repeated it.

 

You said, " But the signs are much less complex than the planets. " This is part

of the breaking-free process, dropping expectations of what " signs " might

consist of. I have acquired a small library of Vedic books and am quite

surprised at the sparse nature ascribed to signs (in the Western tradition)

while using signs in other ways (but limited ways).

 

It might be that my lack of sign-use is not hurting me overly much.

 

As always, I appreciate your thoughts. I do hope your computer upgrade goes

well. I always dread the thought of moving to a new computer and all of the

work that goes with setting it up and transferring files. Although the last

time I did that I purchased one of those USB hard drives from Walmart and backed

up everything there in folder, sub-folder, file formats that were on the old

computer. This made it easy to find and place my files where I wanted them to

be on the new computer. Dave

>

[Guest guest]

At 11:57 AM 8/13/09 -0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

>Therese, thank you for your reply. Yes, I saw the zip file and looked at

it...I'm not sure that Eshelman's notes would have made me pleased to have

attended a seminar that used those notes...

 

No, I'm very bothered by most of the writings on signs in both zodiacs.

 

You wrote: " But, I continue to be vexed by sign meanings. "

 

I don't blame you. Right now I'm putting together a mini-sign report on

Scorpio with example charts to post on this forum. It will give you an idea

of my current approach. I'm finding that I do have to delete some of what I

previously wrote as the horoscopes don't support certain concepts. This is

a cause for my delay in getting it all on-line.

 

You wrote: " It seems that a bandwagon of popular support and practice was

started in that period [Leo and Carter] and this " template of application "

provided a nice formula for interpretation...We all adopted that as

early-studies students because almost every author repeated it. "

 

Right, and it seems that no one stopped to question if the template was

accurate. The problem is that with so many students repeating the template,

a kind of mental aura is created that everyone can tune into. ( " Thoughts

are things " said Edgar Cayce.) The aura may be completely wrong, but

everyone believes it. But now with so many timed charts available on the

internet and in databanks for study, there's not excuse for not checking

for facts.

 

>You wrote: " I have acquired a small library of Vedic books and am quite

surprised at the sparse nature ascribed to signs (in the Western tradition)

while using signs in other ways (but limited ways). "

 

This is also the situation in Hellenistic astrology. So there's a great

deal of evidence that India's astrology came from the early western

astrological world. Some Arab influence as well went to India. Many

Hellenistic concepts are similar to India's astrology. (Before it became

corrupted by modern practitioners.)

 

> You wrote: " Although the last time I did that I purchased one of those

USB hard drives from Walmart and backed up everything there in folder,

sub-folder, file formats that were on the old computer. This made it easy

to find and place my files where I wanted them to be on the new computer.

 

I'm going to Walmart in a few days, and will look into picking up a flash

drive. I do have zip disks, but they only hold 100 MB. Thanks for the

suggestion.

 

Therese