Hello

[Guest guest]

Therese sent

 

Hi Diana,

 

It's great to have you here, and somehow, I can't see you leaving us just

yet. Actually this isn't a Vedic (Jyotish) forum. The absent owner is (I

believe) a staunch western sidereal astrologer. I volunteered to take over

as moderator as he wanted to put his energy elsewhere, and I'm still here

several years later. (We do have some tropical lurkers on this forum.)

 

You're probably had it " up to here " with well meaning advice from others

about treating cancer. The latest (from my daughter) is a raw foods diet.

She saw a late night television program about so-called miracle cures. (I'd

do your solar return, but can't find your birth chart.)

----------------

Oh, I don't mind advice, I read it all...raw foods, huh? Well, I do have

digestive problems with some things, but I do find salad (which I love) goes

 

down just fine. Have one almost every night. Thanks for the tip!

------

I've become totally intrigued with the binary theory for our sun because it

means the equinoxes are stable (no precession) but the sidereal sky is

moving as our solar system curves through space. This has major

implications for the study of the stars and constellations in relation to

zodiac signs. So what is happening if the tropical zodiac is seen as

shifting when it's not really moving? The stars and constellations are

moving instead (from our perspective). http://www.binaryre

<http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/> searchinstitute.org/

 

It really all depends on your viewpoint - what's happening is not that the

equinoxes

and solstices move, per se, it's just that they occur 50 seconds of a degree

earlier each

year in relation to the background of the stars. If you are observing a

solstice sunrise,

say, at Stonehenge, it's going to occur at the same spot (the Heelstone)

every year

over millennia, but the stars behind that Sun would shift over time.

 

For instance, in 61 CE, (the year Romans destroyed Anglesey's Druid

stronghold,

publicly humiliated Queen Boudicca of the Iceni and raped her young

daughters, and

the enraged queen led a rebellion that destroyed 3 cities and a full Roman

legion, what you

might call a " banner year " in English history), the summer solstice sunrise

would have

had the stars of the upper part of the aggressive Gemini Twins behind it

(specifically,

85 Geminorum in Pollux's club held in his right hand...of course, the bright

Sun would

have made the stars invisible). If you were to visit Stonehenge today to

see the summer

solstice sunrise, the Sun would still rise over the Heelstone, but the stars

behind the Sun

would be the feet of the Twins, because over time, the solstices and

equinoxes seem to

occur earlier and earlier against the background of the stars. It is the

Earth's slight

wobble that leads to that effect, which we call " precession " . You could say

that, from

that point of view, it is the tropical zodiac that is " fixed " and the

sidereal zodiac that " moves " .

 

But we keep shifting the starting point of the tropical zodiac. Think about

it: In the binary theory, zero sidereal Aries is actually shifting instead

of the equinox. But zero Aries is still zero Aries against the stars. If

the stars help define tropical signs, doesn't this mean that tropical sign

interpretation has to keep changing?

 

" We " don't shift the starting point of the tropical zodiac - it creeps

backward

at the rate of about 50.23 seconds of arc per year (by " it " I mean the point

at which the Sun crosses the ecliptic each year, in the Spring and the

Fall).

The solstices, which are points at which the Sun reaches its declination

extremes

in the Summer and Winter, come exactly between the Equinoxes. It is the

solstices that are visible (because the Sun, which has, at both it's risings

and settings, been

moving along the horizon at a steady rate, seems to stop this moving, and

" stands still " for a

few days, then resumes moving, but back in the other direction), and these

visible

" standstill " or " solstice " points have been marked by monuments all over the

world

as far back as anyone can tell - these changes in the Sun's direction along

the horizon

must have seemed immensely mysterious and important to ancient observers.

(One of the things I discovered is that 0 degrees of the cardinal signs have

their own distinct

energies - rather like Mars!)

 

By the way,

The reason tropicalists have to calculate precession correction when using

fixed stars

is that the distance from the backward-moving Vernal Equinox (0 Aries) to

any given star

lengthens as time progresses. If a tropicalist doesn't use stars, there's no

need to calculate

precession.

 

You wrote above " if the stars help define tropical signs, doesn't this mean

that tropical

sign interpretation has to keep changing? "

 

The stars don't define the tropical signs. The stars define the sidereal

signs.

The tropics i.e. the solstices and equinoxes, define the tropical signs. 0

Aries starts where

the ascending Sun intersects the celestial equator each Spring. after 29

degrees have passed,

0 Taurus begins, and so forth. 0 Cancer is the peak of the Sun's northern

declination,

0 Libra is the Sun's descending intersection with the celestial equator, 0

Capricorn

is the point of the Sun's most extreme southern declination, its winter

" standstill " on

the horizon.

 

So, gradually over millennia, the tropical signs have been moving backward

over the

the original sky-pictures. The tropical zodiac's signs just happened to have

kept the names

of the constellations they once lined up with, which as we all know, has

ended up causing

all sorts of confusion and consternation (and mockery from astronomers).

Which, for instance, is the real Aries? The star pattern of the Ram? Or the

1st 30 degrees

counting from the Vernal Equinox?

 

You asked if the tropical sign interpretations have to keep changing. Yes,

they do. And so

do the sidereal signs! Both zodiacs are not only valid, but strong. That's

the problem.

Each side is insisting that it is the right zodiac because we each have the

experience that our

chosen one works! What has to be understood is that the two zodiacs are

combining

their energies, which is both confusing and enlightening at the same time.

There is a

subtle difference between the two effects. The sidereal zodiac is more

structurally

physical in its effects - body structure, bodily strengths and/or

limitations, etc. The tropical

zodiac is more psychological and mentally-based, noetic, if you will. Since

the mind is the

basis of so much of our lives, this gives the tropical zodiac its great

strength. But our

physical body is what the mind has to work with, and that is sidereal. You

know, I think

a good way of explaining it would be that the sidereal signs are the

hardware and the tropical

signs are the software, and you need them both to build a life!

 

I have discovered that putting the two systems together is dynamite, and

each combined sign

(whether you call it Aries-Pisces or Pisces-Aries, for instance) gives depth

and complexity

to an individual's chart. I was born Apr 9, 1933, 10:13 AM EST, New

Rochelle, NY;

tropically I have a stellium in Aries in the 10th, sidereally an even larger

stellium in Pisces.

I have the Aries impulsiveness and fierce independence, the Piscean

imagination, fearfulness

and hypersensitivity. Right now it's the Aries that is to the fore, because

I have had to

battle doctors and family members who want me to go the route of radiation

and chemo, and

at the same time fight people who want me to change my book. If I was all

Pisces I don't think

I'd have the strength to do that. I have always needed to " do my own thing "

and that's Arian, not

Piscean. But when I'm writing or studying (or puzzling out how the zodiacs

combine, for instance),

it's the Pisces that gives me more depth than Aries might have, together

with insights and eloquence.

 

Please keep us posted on progress with your book. It's going to be three

volumes??

 

 

Yes, three volumes - the index alone will take up most of the 3rd. I know

that this will make it

costly, but I believe and hope that astrologers will find it worth the

expense. It's 30 years of

research, and goes way beyond anything available - there are stars for every

degree (chosen from

a base of more than 2,500), DSO's (Deep Space Objects like black holes,

etc), new interpretations,

a huge amount of mundane material (quakes, volcanoes, battles, historical

events, etc etc), lunar

mansions, 57 original illustrations with backgrounds of right ascension and

declination lines for

clarity, I'm very fortunate to have found an excellent graphic designer who

is helping me put the

book into printable format (it will be self-published using an on-demand

printer). By the way, my

son designed the cover, which you can see on my website - it's the earliest

known depiction of a

constellation (ca. 16,000 BC)- Taurus, from the Lascaux cave paintings - you

can tell it's Taurus

from the dots around it representing stars, especially the Pleiades Cluster

over his shoulder.

 

Oh - I forgot to mention - I have added the (Lahiri) sidereal degree of each

star to the book so siderealists

won't have to struggle with " translating " each position.

 

You wrote:

>The editor of India's Saptarishis Journal asked that I submit to an

>interview about my work and life, and an old friend, Edith Hathaway, who is

>a Vedic astrologer but very knowledgable about tropical, Uranian, etc,

>volunteered to be the interviewer...

 

Please let us know if we can read or listen to this interview. Edith

Hathaway is tops!

 

Yes, she is! I'll let you know what happens with the interview.

 

 

 

Love, Diana (sorry about the length of this message - I didn't mean to

write another book!)

 

 

 

Website: http://ye-stars.com <http://ye-stars.com/>