its a good thing dima put this thread in the 'nativities and general astrology' ... if he had put it in the 'traditional astrology' category, it would have been more limiting to discuss what i am about to say..

the way i see it, the idea of the suns importance is tied to these different ideas that are constantly in a state of development... the idea of the relevance of the sun-moon phase of a chart seems important to me.. it can't be gotten from just examining the sun sign, or the house the sun lands in or the aspects that the sun is involved in... now whether astrologers want to consider this, or even further - impose the idea on the solar return - that is something that some might want to explore...

but to go back to dimas first post where he mentions what stands at odds with 'modern astrology'.... it seems to me this ongoing tension over the terms 'traditional astrology' and 'modern astrology' comes up quite a bit in certain places... i would be curious how 'modern astrology' gets defined... dimas idea of it is probably different then others ideas of it.. and who exactly can say what it is, just like 'traditional astrology'.? it is a very big tent - both of them...

i have watched two interviews on Volker Schendel's website - the one dima mentioned with luis ribiero and another one with stephen birchfield... i am watching a 3rd one at the moment too... i have some questions to ask after watching these 2 videos, that i will save for another thread, but it seems 'traditional astrology' needs something to define itself and it necessitates using 'modern astrology' as a type of kicking ball.. i will discuss this in an independent thread in the near future..

Well, arguably any sort of label or description is only meaningful in contrast with others: modern and traditional, old and new, long and short, big and small, etc. But if one reads astrology texts written over the past two millennia or so, it's fairly easy to see that a major break took place in the European tradition during the 17th to 19th century (a little later in the English-speaking world than on the continent), with rather far-reaching changes occurring in the late 19th and early 20th as people tried to rebuild a knowledge system without access to very many texts or much of a living tradition. In academic contexts, I personally prefer to speak of pre- and early modern astrology rather than 'traditional'.

My comments on the idea of tithi-praveśa were just in response to the idea (suggested on the page you linked to) that this was a premodern Indian concept. I don't think there is anything to support that, but that's just a note in the margin and has no direct bearing on its astrological usefulness.

my comments are mostly coming out of some 'subjective' observations from the 2 interviews i saw with Volker Schendel... it was like some of the questions he asked to both astrologer - teachers, were like the kinds of questions you would ask a person of a particular religion or faith - 'what do you believe?'... that would be a simple way to put it....

i like how you've broken down the historical periods with regard these simple definitions 'traditional' and 'modern'... of course it could be broken down a number of ways too... i will expand upon all this in an upcoming post...

james_m wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2024 5:11 pm the way i see it, the idea of the suns importance is tied to these different ideas that are constantly in a state of development... the idea of the relevance of the sun-moon phase of a chart seems important to me.. it can't be gotten from just examining the sun sign, or the house the sun lands in or the aspects that the sun is involved in... now whether astrologers want to consider this, or even further - impose the idea on the solar return - that is something that some might want to explore...

Well articulated.

james_m wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2024 5:11 pm but to go back to dimas first post where he mentions what stands at odds with 'modern astrology'.... it seems to me this ongoing tension over the terms 'traditional astrology' and 'modern astrology' comes up quite a bit in certain places... i would be curious how 'modern astrology' gets defined... dimas idea of it is probably different then others ideas of it.. and who exactly can say what it is, just like 'traditional astrology'.? it is a very big tent - both of them...

I have noticed the tension between "traditional astrology" and "modern astrology" in certain places too.

From what I have observed, allegedly modern astrology is defined as a psychological approach to natal chart delineations, while using Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and asteroids. Whereas traditional astrology is defined as sometime before 1800, no planets past Saturn, major aspects only, and predictive methods. If I have missed anything with how the two are defined, do correct me if inclined!

Curious: If one uses techniques from traditional astrology and includes Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto too, what kind of astrology are they practicing?

james_m wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2024 5:11 pm but it seems 'traditional astrology' needs something to define itself and it necessitates using 'modern astrology' as a type of kicking ball.. i will discuss this in an independent thread in the near future..

Well said and looking forward to it.


Cheers,

Yfke

thanks Yfke

we are getting off the threads topic, but i will quickly say a few words on this...

traditional astrology is a term that started to get a lot of traction in the 1990's with the availability of william lillys 'christian astrology' and the work of project hindsight which was something started by robert schmidt, robert zoller and robert hand.. they could have called it the 'robert' project, but thought of a better name... essentially documents and books from the deep past started to become available to more folks..

so that is when the popular use of this term started... all the cool astrologers who were into this started calling themselves 'traditional' astrologers... that is the simple version, lol.. oh and to highlight their superiority they referred to everyone else doing astrology who wasn't in this cool club as ''modern'' astrologers, lol... kid you not! as you can imagine the terms or labels have worn a bit thin over the years...

What we read about Modern Astrology is that it is primarily used for personal analysis and guidance, often linked to self-help, counseling, and understanding psychological and spiritual dynamics.
But it has opened up a whole range of possibilities starting with

1) Softwares development
First scientific ephemeris and computer calculations.
2) Some new concepts
- Holistic (Dane Rudhyar)
- Evolutionary (Jeff Green)
- Jungian (Steven Forrest, Liz Greene)
- Archetypical (Richard Tarnas)
- Historical (André Barbault, Nicholas Campion)
- Financial (Ray Merriman)
- Spiritual science (Rudolf Steiner)
- Hellenistic (Robert Hand, Robert Schmidt, Chris Brennan, Robert Zoller)
Some will argue that it is not modern astrology but the many translations of older texts is a more recent contribution. And language barriers are being abolished with instant translation tools.
- Astro*Carto*Graphy (Jim Lewis)
- Uranian astrology and midpoints (Alfred Witte and Reinhold Ebertin)
- Astrodatabank (Lois Rodden)
- Harmonics (Charles Harvey, Charles Jayne, John Addey, Bruce Scofield, David Cochrane)
- Deep sky including asteroids
- Artificial Intelligence
Offering deep learning possibilities and management of large databases.
- Forums (Skyscript, Astrology Weekly)
- Many schools and magazines online.

This does not cover all possibilities but the future looks bright. And it shows that 'Modern Astrology' is well and alive.

As Martin said, there was a harsh break in the history of astrology and it is obvious to speak from before (“traditional”) and after (“modern”) even if the system in question was not completely consistent before. It seems to me that this break originated somehow when the ideology of the so called “Enlightenment” occured.
(For me as a non-native English speaker this term sounds very funny because there is just no connection to what the Indians call enlightenment since it’s almost the opposite.)

There were many babies thrown out with the bath water during “Enlightenment”. In my opinion it demands a very good reason to wipe away important parts of a system which was collected and developed in more than 2,000 years. So I can understand that somebody considers “traditional astrology“ superior to the developments of only 250 years. Or as John Frawley hews to “traditional astrology“ as the “real astrology”.

Haven’t seen the mentioned video with Luís Ribeiro I am convinced that his statement…

Dima Gur wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2024 1:30 am My understanding of what Luis said was that if the Sun isn't in the first house, and Leo isn't the rising sign (thus the Sun would be the ruler), nor does the Sun configured to the ruler of the 1st by conjunction or an aspect, then the Sun sign won't play a major role in shaping the personality of the native.

…is correct and self evident if one follows the old masters of astrology.

It seems that since astrology exists, every astrologer has been borrowing from ancient texts (tradition) and adding something of their own (modern in their times).
Astrology is not a finished business where everything is cast in dogms.
Rudolf Steiner said that to every statement, there are 12 different truths.
Traditional astrology was used historically for matters of kings, wars, weather, crops and large-scale events, focusing on predictions and larger cycles of fate.
Is it the world we live in today?
What I have found in my practice is that astrology is larger than any system.
You could spend your whole life studying only Dignities and not come to understanding half of it.
This is because every chart is 'unique'.
You can put it in whatever category you want, it will never describe the whole experience of this particular human being.
Try this. Cast the chart of someone and have them tell you about their life.
Stop. Don't say a word about everything you have learned in astrology. Just listen. You will be amazed about what you will discover and thought you knew.

Nice participation,
Thanks everyone for replying.
I was unsure as to posting this on the traditional or the natal board, I think here is fine.

Martin:
- Good points there with the Sun being the sect light in 50% of charts, which would lend it some importance in the very least and maybe more than 'some' importance, more likely.
- Also, with the Sun being one of the candidates for being Hyleg, another good point. It also emphasizes the Sun's importance, beyond some other planets.

That was part of my underlying thinking I guess. That the Sun isn't just a planet, it's a star. Hence, it makes sense that it would be more important than just any other planet out there.
I'd have to be on the lookout for confirming evidence, in various traditional sources. Don't know If I'll be able to find anything.

- Also the Sun has the potential to make other planets combust or put them under the rays (cazimi too).
- The synodic cycles of planets are all determined by their relation to the Sun.
- Sun never goes retro. A beacon of stability, sort of.
But, is it all enough to elevate it, in contrast to other celestial bodies? In such a way that it would become descriptive of the native's personality. I'm not sure.

Dima Gur wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 7:51 pm
Martin:
- Good points there with the Sun being the sect light in 50% of chart, which would lend it some importance in the very least and maybe more than 'some' importance, more likely.
- Also, with the Sun being one of the candidates for being Hyleg, another good point. It also emphasizes the Sun's importance, beyond some other planets.

well, if the ascendant is at least 50% and the sun counts for 50 %, that doesn't leave a lot for the other planets, does it? lol... fortunately 'traditional' astrologers don't have to worry about those pesky outer planets - uranus, neptune and pluto, as that would really add to more confusion in the % dept!

james_m wrote: Sat Dec 28, 2024 4:58 pm thanks Yfke

we are getting off the threads topic, but i will quickly say a few words on this...

traditional astrology is a term that started to get a lot of traction in the 1990's with the availability of william lillys 'christian astrology' and the work of project hindsight which was something started by robert schmidt, robert zoller and robert hand.. they could have called it the 'robert' project, but thought of a better name... essentially documents and books from the deep past started to become available to more folks..

so that is when the popular use of this term started... all the cool astrologers who were into this started calling themselves 'traditional' astrologers... that is the simple version, lol.. oh and to highlight their superiority they referred to everyone else doing astrology who wasn't in this cool club as ''modern'' astrologers, lol... kid you not! as you can imagine the terms or labels have worn a bit thin over the years...

Thank you for filling me in, james_m.

I'll add a few off-topic words too (thank you for your tolerance, Dima!). Indeed, I have noticed a bit of a superiority complex. My brain automatically takes me to the question, why? Perhaps only modern astrology can get to the root of this question. (Couldn't help but have a crack at the distinction. I practice both "traditional astrology" and "modern astrology," but I won't ever define myself with either.)


Yfke

Not so much off topic as Dima opened up a can of salmon!

"This of course stands in odds to modern astrology wisdom. I'm not necessarily a big fan of modern astrology, but I guess 'old habits are hard to drop'.
What do you think?"

My understanding here is that whatever astrology we use (old or modern) is fine as long as we understand the principles.
Can't remember who said 'Astrology is right, astrologers are wrong'.

If you read Lilly giving his interpretation of a Horary chart, you think Oh my God, I want to copy what he is doing.
And I had the same reaction when I saw Isabel Hickey (modern) doing a live reading.
They both understood astrology and the symbols they were playing with.
The biggest mistake we make with astrology is trying to fit a piece of the puzzle at the same place all the time thinking that it is how it is suppose to be.
I pray not so much an astrology system but astrologers who understand what they are doing.