Nixx wrote:

Do you have any names to throw in here Therese. I take the view like Martin here and Bowser, and a far as I can see pretty much everyone else, that you can't combine Zodiacs coherently and you are faced with a personal choice.

I don't believe the zodiacs can be successfully combined. I think it muddies the waters. But a number of western Jyotish astrologers do discuss tropical sun signs with their clients if the client is more comfortable with that zodiac. Komilla Sutton in her Indian Astrology combines the nakshatras with tropical sun signs and their rulerships. To me, this makes no sense and is incorrectly combining symbolism. It may have been the author's purpose to interest more readers in Indian's nakshatras.

Paul wrote:

You've suggested using your website as a source of sidereal information, but I find it outright baffling at times.

For example:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/APlanets.htm

You say that "there is little guess work involved in choosing the probable zodiacal rulers of Taurus and Gemini, the two signs still without their primary domicile lords"

What does this mean? Surely Venus and Mercury respectively rule those signs.

Yes, today Venus and Mercury definitely do rule those two signs. We are looking far into the future for additional rulers of the signs. Humnaity as a whole hasn't yet absorbed Pluto's meaning. (Edgar Cayce said that Pluto had to do with a developing spiritual awareness.) If other planets are out there, they may well be of a finer vibration and won't be visible for hundreds of years. So I was speculating about the future in that statement. (I've read that in earalier ages most people's eyes couldn't percieve the blue in the sky, but saw it as mostly a gray tone. So as our spiritual awareness grows, so is our perception expanded.)

Therese: "Taurus and Gemini don't have their own domicile lords as yet, but their lords would be exalted in Aquarius and Leo respectively. These two signs had no exalted planets in the ancient system."

Paul: But neither did Sagittarius or Scorpio, so why Aquarius or Leo?

Following the schema in that article, Uranus is exalted in Scorpio and Pluto is exalted in Sagittarius. So two more planets would fill in the exaltation scheme.

Therese: "It's intriguing that this ancient Zoroastrian text assigns the remote Artemis to Aquarius, Neptune to Pisces, with which all modern astrologers agree, and Pluto to Aries, the suggested sidereal co-lord of Aries"

Do you have the original translation without your comments anywhere?

The source is quoted in my article. The quotes are clearly definied in a bold italic font, and my comments are in the regular font.

[There is no house of the Moon, but by sympathy, Leo and Cancer being the houses of the Sun, the Moon is coinhabitant of Cancer] (corrupt text restored by Robert Schmidt)
(CCAG 8, 3; 120-122: page 23 of The Astrological Record of the Early Sages in Greek, Project Hindsight, Volume X)

Therese wrote:

I don't believe the zodiacs can be successfully combined. I think it muddies the waters. But a number of western Jyotish astrologers do discuss tropical sun signs with their clients if the client is more comfortable with that zodiac.Komilla Sutton in her Indian Astrology combines the nakshatras with tropical sun signs and their rulerships. To me, this makes no sense and is incorrectly combining symbolism. It may have been the author's purpose to interest more readers in Indian's nakshatras.

But isn't it the case that Indian astrology already combines two conceptionally different zodiacs? The 12 sign zodiac introduced from Greco-Roman astrology and the much older indigenous lunar based Nakshatras?

Clearly some changes took place to fit the 27 Nakshatras in with the 12 sign zodiac. Today the value of each Nakshatra is precisely 13 degrees and 20 minutes when measured from the fixed initial point. However, it appears the Nakshatras were originaly of unequal length in the Vedic period. Moreover, academics concur that the Nakshatras originally began with Krittika in the ancient period centred on the Pleiades star cluster. However, this now forms the third Nakshatra. Several writers have suggested probably motivated by the effects of precession.

http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option ... &showall=1

There is an interesting connection here to the early Mesopotamian 18 constellation 'path of the Moon' which also had its beginning with marker stars in the Pleiades.

I have been looking at working with the Nakshatras myself but more as a stand alone system. While I use the tropical zodiac I haven't considered combining the two. However, there do appear to be a small minority of Indian astrology practitioners who utilise Indian astrology with the tropical zodiac. I am assuming this includes the Nakshatras too.

One of the best known advocates of this approach is in the west is Ernst Wilhem.

http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=94

Mark

delete

Varuna2 wrote:

Mark, I cannot accept the basis nor the implications of that assertion.

I didn't give a time frame to when the Nakshatras developed but I generally agree with you that they originated long before hellenistic astrology was introduced to India.

Varune 2 wrote:

The previous 3 quotes mark the time when the ashwini nakshatra was at the winter solstice and not the vernal equinox, because this type of year was divided into the solstices, therefore the time frame here is 7000-6000 b.c.

Do you know of any supporting research to back that claim up?

Varuna2 wrote:

When we study ancient hindu sources, we should remember it was western scholars (with their own preconceptions and bias) who attributed the dating applied to them, and who even created the fabric upon which we discuss these things.

What makes you think only westerners have preconceptions and bias? I think a far bigger problem today comes from members of the Indian astrological community who seek to impose an exclusively theological world view upon all the evidence. This article by Dieter Koch highlights the problem:

http://www.astro.com/astrologie/in_vedic2_e.htm

Varuna I was replying to Therese in regards a particular comment she made in regards the Nakshatras and tropical astrology. We have obviously debated the history of the Nakshatras on Skyscript at considerable length before.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6425

Varuna2-If you want another discussion on the history of the Nakshatras I strongly recommend opening a new thread on the new Indian astrology thread. I fear this discussion is already de-railing this existing thread somewhat.

Mark

Mark wrote:

But isn't it the case that Indian astrology already combines two conceptionally different zodiacs? The 12 sign zodiac introduced from Greco-Roman astrology and the much older indigenous lunar based Nakshatras?

In practice these are not combined in the way that Kimilla Sutton combines them in her book. The Moon is interpreted in the context of its nakshatra. The 27 nakshatra (mansion) lords are used to mark off the planetary periods through life. But in interpretation the lords of signs aren't combined with the lunar mansions.

However, it appears the Nakshatras were originaly of unequal length in the Vedic period.

They were not so much of unequal length as limited to specific stars or asterism groups. They had no boundaries.

There is an interesting connection here to the early Mesopotamian 18 constellation 'path of the Moon' which also had its beginning with marker stars in the Pleiades.

Yes, the subject of the nakshatras/lunar mansions deserves its own topic heading as a place to explore subjects like this.

I have been looking at working with the Nakshatras myself but more as a stand alone system.

This is how they should be used. Also in natal work they apply mainly to the Moon. If you use the Sun's position in a lunar mansion for character, you will get an incorrect reading.

One of the best known advocates of this approach is in the west is Ernst Wilhem

.
Yes, indeed! Ernst is an interesting case of a unique understanding of the zodiac.

Mark and all: I have started a new thread under the Asian and Indian Topic.
Lunar Mansions (Nakshatras)
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6604

Therese wrote:

This is how they should be used. Also in natal work they apply mainly to the Moon. If you use the Sun's position in a lunar mansion for character, you will get an incorrect reading.

Some western practitioners of Indian astrology seem to be moving away from this. For example, in his book on the Nakshatras, Dennis Harness also advocates looking at the chart ASC and Sun positions through the different mansions.

Mark

It would be good to move this discussion on lunar mansions to the new thread posted above.

This comment is for Paul This lengthy discussion is valuable and interesting but I have little to contribute except for one observation.

The effectiveness of Sidereal or precession-corrected Solar Returns and various derived daily (in between) charts, based on angular contacts by natal, solar, transiting planets cannot be understated. It just all works, and it works very well. The timing is what it is all about.

As for the zodiac's basis, Tropical or Sidereal, and the rational for sign usage and sign placement, I am as confused as you are. Accordingly, I gave up the use of signs and concentrate only on planets, angles, houses, aspects. After 43 years of practice and study, I don't miss them.

Simplicity of charting, without signs, rulerships, etc., has brought clarity. I would rather work with a few tools that I can trust will not fail me or mislead those I read for then to exercise many tools and end up with astro-babble. Just my view. However, I do wish these complex issues could be resolved. Dave

Having read a bit of the western siderealist viewpoint, I?d have to say their arguments have actually led me towards the tropical worldview.

There is abundant evidence that the ?spirit? of many of the zodiac signs - that which imbues them with meaning - is based on seasonal effects associated with the sign in question. This seems a very tough point to prove wrong.

Then, I have heard western sidereal practitioners noting the ?immutability? or ?constancy? of the zodiac, under which the points of the equinoxes and solstices slowly turn.

But this narrative is challenged if one finds evidence that the signs themselves are not so immutable, especially if it is plausible that the signs have actually changed through the eons in keeping with the shifts of precession. Gavin White has written about this, as have others. This ?updating? has been described in terms of changing the lore of certain signs, as well as the wholesale remaking of constellations.

At this point, what comes to my mind is a siderealist idea that I have heard articulated that no one has really been ?watching? the stars from Ptolemy?s time until recently. The argument here is that this lack of attention to the skies has glued most (i.e. tropical) western astrologers to signs that are out of phase with their constellations and thus incorrect. But to me it seems that this contentious point of whether or not precession was truly forgotten may be secondary. One primary process that has not happened since Ptolemy?s time is the continuation of the previous evolution of the lore of the signs. If such updating, as mentioned above, did indeed occur for thousands of years, but stopped during Europe?s dark ages and after, it would indeed be appropriate to hold to the Ptolemaic-era locations of the zodiac signs, since the meanings of the constellations have not been updated as they should have been.

I?ve thus found that one common western siderealist narrative has led me more to the tropical viewpoint. But it also points to a way of harmony. If western siderealist signs do indeed hold some evolved or updated meaning, then the technical difference between the two systems might be compensated for by the symbolic difference. In other words, the two views would take two different paths to the same conclusions. I am glad this thread opened because I have had this question for a while.

Everyone seems to be overlooking a key point

The discussion of the interpretive value of Tropical and Sidereal signs needs to be the second part of a two part discussion. The first part of the discussion, in my opinion, needs to start with another topic, the topic of TIMING.

Precession-corrected Tropical usage or Sidereal usage in chats for periods of time separated from the natal chart's time period --- such as in Solar Returns, Lunar Returns and other forms of cyclic charting --- provides charts that are obviously different and effective in the correlation of their timing and angular activity with events in our lives. The chart timing issue is so critical that it should drive the discussion of which zodiac to use.

Either zodiac has no bearing on natal charts or on progressed or directed charts as these are all close-in-time to the natal chart (within weeks or a couple of months). Progressed and directed charts only symbolically project into the far future of later years, the charts themselves are only a short time after the natal chart.

On the other hand, cyclic charts such as Returns and derived cyclic charts work so well when precession is accounted for. Why is this adjustment from the Tropical natal positions so effective? I'll be glad to extend this discussion along those lines. But, is it so important to quibble over the arbitrary divisions of local space in terms of their interpretive basis. We have a big clue in front of us --- the difference and timing of chats and our ability to do prediction when using p.c. tropical or sidereal frameworks. Dave