Therese Hamilton wrote:Paul wrote:

I'm not so interested in the jyotish, my interest would be the western sidereal signs.

When discussing the sidereal zodiac we can't leave India out of the equation for the simple reason that there was an obvious interchange of astrological concepts between early western writers and India. So if we pick up a standard text on Jyotish we find in the chapter devoted to signs of the zodiac:

I'm inclined to believe that although there was an exchange, in terms of the zodiac, the exchange was pretty much one way, from the greeks/hellenists to the indian astrologers.
There are claims of a vedic zodiac but the evidence appears to suggest that primarily the vedic astrologers concerned themselves with lunar mansions rather than a solar zodiac. An article by Dieter Koch goes into this in more detail and I can link you to it if you like.

In any event any crossover which would occur in zodiacal symbolism in the early hellenistic period would have filtered through to both zodiacs as it would have occurred prior to the separation we have now.

Likewise if it's a valid construct, there can be only one sidereal zodiac.

I disagree with this logic. There can be any number of sidereally defined zodiacs as noted by the differing ayanamsha's and the logic for their usage. Some use Spica, others use other fixed stars. I'm not sure why one particular fixed star should gain such prominence as to have the entire zodiac modelled after it, but this seems to be the approach that is taken as I understand it. It's a problem then of, at the very least, calculation. With competing theories as to the best way to calculate the sidereal zodiac, we have competing sidereal zodiacs and their supporters. This is pretty much the point you yourself make, however we could also argue for a non-equally defined zodiac, perhaps based more on the actual visible constellations for example. This would still be a sidereal zodiac, just not the same kind as is popular. In fact to my mind it would seem to make more sense to use the constellations than simply place exceptional prominence on one star, and then for the purposes of calculation just ignore every other star and every other constellation.

But as I say, my interest is in the non-jyotish astrology. Let's make it simpler and just say the astrology practiced by modern western sidereal astrologers. I'm still looking for a good source for understanding the symbolism of the signs in the sidereal system so that I could see whether there are dramatic differences.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Well, yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. Here's the underlying principle for sidereal Taurus: Taurus rules the throat and tongue.
So the ability to express oneself verbally in principle belongs to Taurus. Gemini rules the shoulders, hands and arms. So Gemini can have to do with such activities as writing and the arts and boxing, various sports and so forth. These are generally said to belong to Mercury.

The underlying principle according to Cyril Fagan: We have always been seeing the original sidereal signs. I believe that Fagan said somewhere that the astrological tropical zodiac doesn't exist, but it's a measuring reference for astronomers. (I have Fagan's writings. I'll try to find a reference to that when I have time.)

Right but you're contradicting your own (or perhaps Fagan's) logic here. On the one hand you're saying there is no real tropical zodiac, merely a sidereal zodiac and the tropical astrologers alter their meanings accordingly. But on the other hand you're actually doing the same for the sidereal signs - rewriting them to match the tropical signs.

That's what's so confusing. Is it that both the sidereal and tropical signs borrow from one another? In which case both are equally valid and equally flawed? Or is it that the tropical signs shift in meaning according to precession which was your original statement. But if that's the case why are you shifting the meaning of Taurus to match tropical Gemini?

As I've said before, Valens presents problems because his writings on zodiac signs seem to be a collection of ideas from many sources. So if Valens called Taurus "mute, " my opinion is that he was wrong. Valens preferred the masculine signs, and tended to give them more positive meanings.

Okay, I'm not sure why he only presents problems when I quote from him, but not when you have quoted from him. As I've asked before, if there's another hellenistic sidereal source you'd rather I quote from, then let me know and if I have access to it I'll try to do that. Until then seeing as you have set a precedence prior to my involvement in the debate of quoting from Valens, and I believe Sari also quoted from Valens, I see no reason why I shouldn't similarly quote from Valens and don't recognise the logic that it's only problematic when I quote from him to contradict something which seems a divergence.
I really don't see why we would say that Valens was simply 'wrong' by saying that Taurus is a mute sign. In fact most astrologers, at least most tropical ones, would also put Taurus down as a mute sign. I don't believe there's any reason to suggest it because he preferred 'masculine' signs. For example he says of Aquarius that it is "masculine, solid, anthropomorphic, somewhat damp, single. It is mute, quite cold" - so it is clearly not a preference for assigning muteness to the feminine signs because of some bigotry.

As I said before, the western sidereal signs never jelled. There is no standard book on their meanings.

Right, which makes me wonder why you 'know' that the tropical signs shifted meanings to match the sidereal ones, when you then say that there is no standard book on sidereal meanings anyway. You're also not comfortable using hellenistic sidereal authors like Valens either. It makes it difficult to understand the foundations behind your logic tbh. If you accept that there are no standard meanings for sidereal signs, and accept that you have shifted the sidereal meanings on your own website to match tropical signs, on what basis do you make the claim that tropical signs have shifted in line with precession as compared to the sidereal signs?

Somewhat off-topic, so I'll keep it short:

Paul wrote:

Therese Hamilton wrote:When discussing the sidereal zodiac we can't leave India out of the equation for the simple reason that there was an obvious interchange of astrological concepts between early western writers and India. So if we pick up a standard text on Jyotish we find in the chapter devoted to signs of the zodiac:

I'm inclined to believe that although there was an exchange, in terms of the zodiac, the exchange was pretty much one way, from the greeks/hellenists to the indian astrologers.

The original transmission of (Greek-language) horoscopic astrology to India in the first/second century CE was a one-way affair, or at least there is no evidence that I know of to the contrary. In the early medieval period, however, there was much more give-and-take between Indian, Persian and Arabic astrologers. So it depends on which period we are looking at. The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.

The original transmission of (Greek-language) horoscopic astrology to India in the first/second century CE was a one-way affair, or at least there is no evidence that I know of to the contrary. In the early medieval period, however, there was much more give-and-take between Indian, Persian and Arabic astrologers. So it depends on which period we are looking at. The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.

I'd go along with that, (keeping this short too). But would also add that the Hellenized astrology which flowed via trade routes from Alexandria, through Persia to India, could have had a lot more Persian influence in its origins than we realise. 8th century Arabic historians record reports of how Alexandria the Great destroyed many Persian libraries after his defeat of Darius III. Books on scientific subjects like astrology were transferred to Egypt which then went into the Alexandrian library. Those that were not translated were burned and inscriptions on stone were destroyed. For me, the area around Khurastan in Persia is greatly unappreciated for the influence it had on astrology - eastwards and westwards, and both before and after the 'Hellenistic period'. The same with Babylon and Baghdad but we are more alert to that.

Martin Gansten wrote:The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.

But was the influence related to the zodiac per se? Or techniques that can be used?
In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology? If so would this not have influenced both tropical and sidereal astrology in the west?

Bearing in mind what I'm trying to distance myself from is if, say, the eastern astrologers drastically altered the dignities or the humours or whatever - I do not know as I do not know enough about eastern astrology.
So that we can say, as an example "Okay in the tropical zodiac taurus is a mute sign, but in the sidereal zodiac it is an articulate sign" - in other words so that the signs themselves are focused on, not interpretive techniques that may be eastern in origin as I would have no frame of reference to compare them against and also as it wouldn't inform me the differences or evolution of the zodiac between the sidereal and tropical streams.

Keeping in mind that a background reason for wanting to know is also with Therese's opinion about the tropical zodiac changing to match precession, as well as the more basic reason, trying to understand the basic fundamentals of what the signs mean in sidereal astrology. The reason I say that is that in previous experiences when I've asked for simple definitions of what the signs symbolise or signify, sidereal astrologers have baffled me by instead discussing the importance of dashas and nakshatras. So I've struggled in the past to just get a simple idea of what the signs means so that I can compare them with tropical signs, and it seems that most of this is because of using terms familiar to vedic astrologers but which tropical astrologers might be ignorant of.

Deb wrote:I'd go along with that, (keeping this short too). But would also add that the Hellenized astrology which flowed via trade routes from Alexandria, through Persia to India, could have had a lot more Persian influence in its origins than we realise.

I fully agree. And it's worth noting, in this forum especially, that the Persian tradition seems to have been sidereal too. Arabic texts based on Persian sources still use a sidereal year for the annual return technique, which seems to have originated in Persia.

Paul wrote:In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology?

No, I don't see that they did. They brought in aspects of their own culture (such as Hindu deities and the caste system), but that's a different matter. Descriptions of the signs in Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic sources are largely similar.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Paul wrote:In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology?

No, I don't see that they did. They brought in aspects of their own culture (such as Hindu deities and the caste system), but that's a different matter. Descriptions of the signs in Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic sources are largely similar.

Right that's what I thought. So we should be able to look at hellensitic authors or even the arabic 8-9th century authors (like you say MashaAllah etc. seem to be using a sidereally defined zodiac as far as I remember) and consider their symbolism as indicative of the sidereal signs right?

This is certainly what I've always thought, with that in mind they would ultimately be the same as the latter tropically defined ones as per Lilly etc. Albeit with cultural changes as have always occurred through time, but not any major changes generally, and certainly not in line with precession?

I realise you already made the point that you do not necessarily agree with Therese's view of the tropical signs changing meaning, but I just want to be clear that my own logic for disagreeing with this idea is also sound. Certainly this has always been my understanding, namely that the sidereal signs are, for the most part, pretty much in line with the tropical ones, albeit that we should aim to remove any obvious tropical symbolism.

Of course as I said before, I think it's difficult to truly separate the two zodiacs as, at least as I see it, the two zodiacs share a common ancestor whose logic was a hybrid of tropical and sidereal considerations.

What this means is that I should be able to look to, for example, my sidereal Libra ascendant, note my ill dignified venus in aries acendant lord and make some statement about this and perhaps my appearance and health? You mentioned in the other thread that this is something you routinely do - note the character and appearance of the individual and make sure it matches the chart.

Paul, this is as close as you'll come to an interpretation of western sidereal signs. As I said, there's no general agreement because there are too few practitioners of the western system. James A. Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer: http://www.amazon.com/new-instant-astro ... 0893220140

As I said before, the western sidereal signs never jelled. There is no standard book on their meanings. James Eshelmans' book in 1976 was the latest. But there may be a sidereal web site out there somewhere. That's why it would be helpful if a few western sidereal astrologers knew about Skyscript and kept us posted on current views.

Eshelman has his forum which may provide some useful information as regards your unique views, as you describe them, on planetary and sign meanings.

http://solunars.net/viewforum.php?f=2&s ... e74881e908

Paul wrote:Right that's what I thought. So we should be able to look at hellensitic authors or even the arabic 8-9th century authors (like you say MashaAllah etc. seem to be using a sidereally defined zodiac as far as I remember) and consider their symbolism as indicative of the sidereal signs right?

I think so, yes.

This is certainly what I've always thought, with that in mind they would ultimately be the same as the latter tropically defined ones as per Lilly etc. Albeit with cultural changes as have always occurred through time, but not any major changes generally, and certainly not in line with precession?

No, not that I am aware of.

Of course as I said before, I think it's difficult to truly separate the two zodiacs as, at least as I see it, the two zodiacs share a common ancestor whose logic was a hybrid of tropical and sidereal considerations.

Yes, I would agree with that (though I believe the sidereal parameters had conceptual priority as far as the zodiac was concerned). It is a situation not unlike the problem of house division, which is also based on different (and sometimes conflicting) parameters: primary motion versus aspectual relation to the ascendant.

What this means is that I should be able to look to, for example, my sidereal Libra ascendant, note my ill dignified venus in aries acendant lord and make some statement about this and perhaps my appearance and health?

Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India). Also, any planet in the ascendant will have a major influence and may trump Venus.

Martin wrote:

The original transmission of (Greek-language) horoscopic astrology to India in the first/second century CE was a one-way affair, or at least there is no evidence that I know of to the contrary. In the early medieval period, however, there was much more give-and-take between Indian, Persian and Arabic astrologers. So it depends on which period we are looking at. The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.

So we might speculate or assume there is evidence that a portion of Indian thought has made its way into later Medieval astrology via the Arabic texts.

Paul, I don't believe we can discuss the sidereal zodiac to any extent without including India's astrology. Here in the United States there seems to be complete harmony between tropical and Jyotish astrologers. Many western astrologers who have learned Jyotish routinely combine the two in order to communicate more effectively with clients.

There is no discussion of seasonal differences in philosophy or tropical vs. sidereal conflict. No one cares! The medieval Renaissance of astrology seems to have taken root mainly in Europe, though Benjamin Dykes makes his home in the United States. Personally I had never given thought to the concept of the tropical zodiac being based on seasonal philosophy. I've simply studied the signs as they operate in the horoscopes of individuals.