I've posted an asnwer on the sidreal forum.
DDAADCA
Graham

Thanks to James-m, Damon and Graham for their answers.

Johannes, I believe you requested a seperate thread in the sidereal froum? Graham has already started one with a link to this post and I will add the chart and the questions after making this post.

I'll leave the debate about appropriateness of sidereal in the ancient forum to the moderators who have posted on the thread.

i don't get wound up if someone uses a different house system

There is absolutely no comparison between different house systems, which are usually only a couple of degrees different from each other, and different zodiacs which place planets in different signs. Two astrologers could discuss the same chart and never know they were using different house systems. Not true with different zodiacs.

If the sidereal forum can be only sidereal by decree, why can't this be only tropical? I still have not seen a reason why we have to incorporate sidereal everywhere. Going over there and posting tropical charts would seem to be intrusive, and it is.

I did say quite clearly in my last post:

Secondly I don't understand the need to bring in two zodiacs in the same thread.

For me that is a far bigger problem than simply posting and discussing sidereal astrology and keeping it separate in the traditional Forum. But that only brings us back to the Sidereal Forum and its purpose. Anyone can post anything about sidereal over there. Why is it necessary to do it here as well?

I still don't understand why it is so important to some people to have a free reign with sidereal when there is a separate forum for it. I can't, nor should I be allowed to interject traditional astrology in the General Forum or book reviews in the horary Forum. Is that a form of apartheid too? What can't you do there that you can only do here? No one is forbidden to use the sidereal Forum and I repeat it was set up for precisely this purpose. Now it seems as though it is a major inconvenience to use it, and a necessity to incorporate sidereal everywhere any siderealist sees fit regardless of the purpose or intent of any other poster.

Also I went over the Quickie Mystery Thread where the original sidereal discussion took place. And what happened there is precisely what I want to avoid. The discussion went from picking things out about the chart to what was and wasn't essential dignity and how that works in sidereal and we introduced some Indian astrology and so on. In other words, although we did have a pretty good discussion on the chart, the sidereal discussions, in my opinion, detracted from the purpose of the thread by creating a potpourri of topics that had nothing to do with the original intent of the post, and brought it perhaps to a premature end. There is little if any common thread between sidereal and tropical and that is a problem especially for people who have no knowledge of or care about the sidereal zodiacs.

Also I stated that sidereal charts could be discussed but asked that they be kept separate. This too is not enough for some despite having a place to do everything they want to do in an appropriate Forum.

I don't see a major problem with keeping order and discussing topics within the Forums that were created for them. I don't see a problem keeping two entirely different ways of looking at a chart separate. I cannot understand at any level why astrologers using the sidereal zodiac find it an imposition to use an entire Forum created specially for them.

IT is much simpler.
This forum is about techniques- Traditional and ancient.
That would include zodiacs.

The second issue is of development in astrology.

When this forum was started- medieval was the traditional and a smattering of Greek astrology -the ancient.

Now,with so much new stuff coming out about hellenistic,so much so that almost all discussion on this forum ends with some hellenistic astrologer, the 100 AD zone is the new traditional and the babylonian is the ancient.

So, times are changing-going backwards

first off my apologies to stellarium for having this discussion on their mystery thread..speaking of having comments on the appropriate threads, it would be better to have it somewhere else!

Tom wrote:

There is absolutely no comparison between different house systems, which are usually only a couple of degrees different from each other, and different zodiacs which place planets in different signs. Two astrologers could discuss the same chart and never know they were using different house systems. Not true with different zodiacs.

clearly you've missed out on some of the conversations going on in the general forum the past week!

Tom wrote:

If the sidereal forum can be only sidereal by decree, why can't this be only tropical?

i think the reason (some of?) this has happened is due the mystery chart exercises and wanting to include those who do sidereal. the sidereal practitioners appear to be in a minority at this site, which was probably (some of?) the reason for a sidereal forum - just like the traditional forum in the past - i am guessing.. the fact is no traditional astrology is excluded from the general forum, but the general forum is more 'general' and can include anything to do with astrology as i understand it. tom - at this point it appears you'd like to call it the traditional and tropical forum, but i see nowhere any mention of this! my question to you - why does it have to be only tropical here? it appears your answer to this is that the sidereal forum was set up to accommodate those who practice sidereal, but i still see no reason to exclude sidereal from this forum.. people can see quickly what zodiac another person is using.. if they can't, i would suggest they need to be doing something else other then astrology!

Tom wrote:
Anyone can post anything about sidereal over there. Why is it necessary to do it here as well?

- see my answer above. why not? it is not like this is a busy place! i note konrad hasn't come back since the last shoot out involving him.. maybe that is just a coincidence, or maybe not..

Tom wrote:
I still don't understand why it is so important to some people to have a free reign with sidereal when there is a separate forum for it. I can't, nor should I be allowed to interject traditional astrology in the General Forum or book reviews in the horary Forum.

as i was mentioning - general forum - one can actually talk about anything, in any zodiac, and any house system, or method. it is why i have opted to use that forum for posting mystery charts. it is less restrictive.. it doesn't mean i am not interested in knowing what a siderealist, or traditionalist thinks - that is just the opposite of what i actually think! i am very curious to know and learn from any style of astrology - especially the one that seems to offer the most insight and perspective.. i don't agree with you when you say "I can't, nor should I be allowed to interject traditional astrology in the General Forum".. i welcome it!

Tom wrote:
There is little if any common thread between sidereal and tropical and that is a problem especially for people who have no knowledge of or care about the sidereal zodiacs.

actually i think the 2 zodiacs have a lot in common in that anyone who uses either one is obviously interested in astrology. they are using a different system, but they do have a lot in common as i see it.

Tom wrote:
I don't see a problem keeping two entirely different ways of looking at a chart separate. I cannot understand at any level why astrologers using the sidereal zodiac find it an imposition to use an entire Forum created specially for them.

i think this is an unfair characterization on those interested in sidereal and posting comments from a sidereal perspective. stellarium in this very thread - posts a mystery chart in 2 formats - and you think that it is wrong for someone to make comments on one of the charts! you seem to think someone who is gracious enough to want to engage fellow astrologers here on this site needs to make 2 posts, instead of 1 and that no one is allowed to post anything to do with sidereal in the traditional section.. this will be my last comment on this - i don't agree and i don't share your viewpoint here especially given how stellarium posted a sidereal chart along with the tropical..

Martin Gansten wrote:

In fact, it was largely non-tropical (meaning that many/most astrologers didn't use the Ptolemy/Hipparchus zodiac) until well into the Middle Ages -- say, 9th or 10th century.

According to the latest research on this issue by Alexander Jones most astrologers in the late hellenistic period had actually adopted the Ptolemy/Hipparchus zodiac. However, the Persians do seem to have had a quite separate sidereal zodiac of their own (completely different from what James Holden has called the 'Alexandrian zodiac of Valens etc). Clearly this influenced astrology in the early medieval period.

Raymond Mercier's article "Studies in the medieval concept of precession" suggests the Toledan Tables (11th Century) were based on the sidereal year, unlike the tables of Ptolemy. The use of the sidereal year had its antecedents in the Kwarizmian tables (9th Century) and the Babylonian methods of the Indian astrological/astronomical tradition.

Mercier indicates the Persian or Sassanian zodiac seems to have an ayanamsa placing it in the the mid 6th century. He came up with a convergence with the tropical zodiac at A.D. 563/564.

One difficulty I think we have to face up to is that there isn't one sidereal zodiac. There are a variety of sidereal 'zodiacs' all calculated from different points according to the tropical zodiac. The Indians call the difference the ayanamsa and Indian astrology forums are full of debates about the merit of one version of the sidereal zodiac versus another.

So when we say sidereal do we mean the 'Alexandrian zodiac', the Persian 'Sassanian zodiac' or a yet another version originating independently from Indian astrology?

Mark wrote:

The really difficult one is what is traditional? Is including Indian techniques pushing the limits of this forum too far? Possibly it is. We do have a separate forum for Indian astrology.

Martin Gansten wrote:

I agree. Of course traditional Indian astrology is, well, traditional; but it has developed in ways that make it significantly different from the 'greater tradition' of horoscopic astrology (the exception being Tajika, or Indianized Perso-Arabic astrology).

Surely this problem extends to choice of zodiac displayed here too? In reality, all the traditional siderealists here seem to be using a zodiac originating in Indian astrology. Whether, Krishnamurti, Lahiri etc they dont seem to derive from an astrological tradition originating with the Alexandrian zodiac or the separate Sassanian zodiac. At least that is my understanding. Perhaps you can clarify a siderealist traditional view on that? Are the differences between the Sassanian zodiac and Lahiri or Krisnamurti totally negligible?

My problem here isn't sidereal astrology. Its rather drawing a line on importing Indian astrological ideas into the traditional forum. We already have a forum for that and to allow Indian astrological techniques here would create a confusing smorgasbord.

Our focus here should be Hellenistic-Persian-Arab-Latin medieval and renaissance/early modern astrology. So while I fully accept your suggestion that non-tropical zodiacs have a valid basis in the Hellenistic-Persian-Arabic tradition I am not convinced that the current zodiacs being displayed as 'traditional sidereal' here do.

Mark

I do apologise to Stellarium for deflecting the focus away from his well designed Mystery chart thread but I do feel this is a vital issue to settle here.

Mark wrote:Martin wrote:

In fact, it was largely non-tropical (meaning that many/most astrologers didn't use the Ptolemy/Hipparchus zodiac) until well into the Middle Ages -- say, 9th or 10th century.

According to the latest research on this issue by Alexander Jones most astrologers in the late hellenistic period had actually adopted the Ptolemy/Hipparchus zodiac. However, the Persians do seem to have had a quite separate sidereal zodiac of their own (completely different from what James Holden has called the 'Alexandrian zodiac of Valens etc). Clearly this influenced astrology in the early medieval period.

Raymond Mercier's article "Studies in the medieval concept of precession" suggests the Toledan Tables (11th Century) were based on the sidereal year, unlike the tables of Ptolemy. The use of the sidereal year had its antecedents in the Kwarizmian tables (9th Century) and the Babylonian methods of the Indian astrological/astronomical tradition.

Mercier indicates the Persian or Sassanian zodiac seems to have an ayanamsa placing it in the the mid 6th century. He came up with a convergence with the tropical zodiac at A.D. 563/564.

One difficulty I think we have to face up to is that there isn't one sidereal zodiac. There are a variety of sidereal 'zodiacs' all calculated from different points according to the tropical zodiac. The Indians call the difference the ayanamsa and Indian astrology forums are full of debates about the merit of one version of the sidereal zodiac versus another.

So when we say sidereal do we mean the 'Alexandrian zodiac', the Persian 'Sassanian zodiac' or a yet another version originating independently from Indian astrology?

In reality, almost all siderealists here seem to be using a zodiac originating in Indian astrology. Whether, Krishnamurti, Lahiri etc they dont seem to derive from an astrological tradition originating with the Alexandrian zodiac or the separate Sassanian zodiac. At least that is my understanding. Perhaps someone can clarify a siderealist traditional view on that. Are the differences between the Sassanian zodiac and Lahiri or Krisnamurti totally negligible?




[4 degree difference]





My problem here isn't sidereal astrology. Its rather drawing a line on importing Indian astrological ideas into the traditional forum. We already have a forum for that and to allow Indian astrological techniques here would create a confusing smorgasbord.

Our focus here should be Hellenistic-Persian-Arab-Latin medieval and renaissance/early modern astrology. So while I accept Martin's suggestion that non-tropical zodiacs have a valid basis in the Hellenistic-Persian-Arabic tradition I am not sure if the zodiacs being displayed as 'traditional sidereal' here actually do.

Mark

I vowed not to take part of this forum outside of the jyotisha section, previously...so much for vows.

On the one hand, Westerners always try to credit everything under the Sun to Mesopotamians and Greeks (due to prejudice and bias of the historical basis of their modern thinking: Judeo-Christianity and Hellenist philosophy), while on the other hand, they want to separate out "Indian astrology ideas" from their forums. According to them, India owes everything to the so-called West, so then how is there such a thing as "Indian astrology ideas"? This is a rhetorical question/rant. Obviously the truth is more subtle in their thinking, they want to give the basis for everything to their own genius, while allowing slight developments of their ideas by others.

Are you seriously going to suggest there are several Sidereal zodiac measurement points, therefore each sidereal zodiac measuring point is a miniature Zodiac: sui generis?

Should we also have to face up to the fact that the Ptolemy system implies 4 different zodiacs?

0 Aries Northern Hemisphere Vernal Equinox
0 Taurus Northern Hemisphere Vernal Equinox (Tetrabiblos 1.17)
0 Libra Northern Hemisphere Vernal Equinox (from the Australian view)
0 Scorpio Northern Hemisphere Vernal Equinox (from the AU view and Tetrabiblos 1.17)


Aldebaran was an important marking star marking the Accadian asterism called Pidnu-sha-Shame. Jupiter is currently conjoined this star by longitude. This star and Jupiter are currently marking the exact center of the so-called Lahiri zodiac sign of Taurus.

This Aldebaran situation of falling exactly midpoint of Taurus, and the other star opposite of it, is also happening at the exact same time a star called Chitra is marking the near exact midpoint of a nakshatra called Chitra and also the beginning of the so-called Lahiri zodiac beginning point of Libra sign-constellation.

"...The full moon in Chitra, is the beginning of the year..." (Taittiriya Sanhita 7.4. This is when the Moon is opposite the Sun, and the samvatsara (year) in this context is referring to the Winter Solstice. Therefore, this verse dates to at least 6000 b.c.e.

I consider it low-brow to start suggesting the measuring point of which star is the reference point of a sidereal zodiac, to represent sui generis sidereal zodiacs, therefore, sui generis astrology systems attached to which star one chooses as a reference point. The reality is that the same culture used more than one star at different times of the year. It would be impossible to practice ancient astrology otherwise, since the marking star would be gone many times of the night and/or year.

As an objectively impartial observer, I believe the sidereal section of the forum should be obliterated, whilst leaving the Jyotisha section only. That would solve this problem.

Hello Varuna,

You seem to have entirely misunderstood the context of this discussion. We are not discussing Indian astrology at all here. Quite the reverse! My point was that it doesn't belong in this particular forum. Your opinions about western scholarship's views of Indian culture are completely irrelevant here.

Your comment about the tropical zodiac is frankly risible. I know you love turning your support for siderealism into a holy crusade but we are trying to have a serious, calm discussion here without indulging in emotive megaphone posting. As you dont practice traditional astrology in the western way I am not clear why you think your views have any relevance to the direction of this forum.

I consider it low-brow to start suggesting the measuring point of which star is the reference point of a sidereal zodiac, to represent sui generis sidereal zodiacs.

I didn't say anything about stars. Only you did. I am not trying to locate the one true sidereal ayanamsa. I simply mentioned that I think the sidereal zodiacs discussed on this forum should be recognisable as part of the horoscopic tradition often called traditional or for want of a better word 'western'. Although, I accept the Persians and Arabs are not exactly western!

As an objectively impartial observer, I believe the sidereal section of the forum should be obliterated, whilst leaving the Jyotisha section only. That would solve this problem.

So what about sidereal astrologers that follow the Cyril Fagan tradition or its contemorary version represented by astrologers like Kenneth Bowser?

http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com ... erview.pdf

Mark

Mark wrote:

One difficulty I think we have to face up to is that there isn't one sidereal zodiac. There are a variety of sidereal 'zodiacs' all calculated from different points according to the tropical zodiac. The Indians call the difference the ayanamsa and Indian astrology forums are full of debates about the merit of one version of the sidereal zodiac versus another.

Right, and this is the sort of issue which should be in the sidereal thread. Starting a discussion about it here would support Tom's point of view.

But that's not the same as simply posting a reply to a mystery chart, stating which zodiac, ayanamsa, house system etc one is using, to avoid confusion. Especially if the post is simply an indication that an answer has been posted in the sidereal forum.

Tom wrote:

the Quickie Mystery Thread [...] went from picking things out about the chart to what was and wasn't essential dignity and how that works in sidereal and we introduced some Indian astrology and so on.

Tom, it was you who introduced this issue of sidereal dignity(detriment) here, implying that a sidereal analysis to the chart therefore probably couldn't be right. I simply responded (since clearly you were not looking at my posts in sidereal) that detriment was not usually used in Indian astro, and that my reasons for considering Mars strong were equally valid (or not) in tropical. This led to few exchanges about detriment, and it was clear that many tropical astrologers also thought detriment was at most only a very minor weakness. So that was helpful. (I've since read that detriment was in fact introduced quite late in the Western tradition, so I've learnt something.)

There is absolutely no comparison between different house systems, which are usually only a couple of degrees different from each other, and different zodiacs which place planets in different signs.

This is not true of the difference between whole sign and quadrant systems: the boundaries can sometimes be several signs apart.

If the sidereal forum can be only sidereal by decree, why can't this be only tropical? I still have not seen a reason why we have to incorporate sidereal everywhere. Going over there and posting tropical charts would seem to be intrusive, and it is.

Well, there have been quite a lot of fruitful (and some fruitless) tropical v. sidereal discussions in the sidereal forum, where there seems to be no decree. For some reasons, tropical astorlogers feel that the sidereal forum is the place to raise tropical V. sidereal issues (which do not have to be black and white, and certainly not hostile).
James wrote:

tom - at this point it appears you'd like to call it the traditional and tropical forum, but i see nowhere any mention of this!

This is certainly what Tom should do if he wants to stick to his position, it's only fair, otherwise it's implying that sidereal is not traditional, which is wrong, and it will constantly lead to new people inadverdently breaking the unwritten rule.
But for example, I am not currently happy about using exaltations sidereally, for two reasons: first, the few Indian techniques I've seen that really work impressively, and almost objectively, don't involve the exaltations, only the domicile rulers, and second, because I think there is some reason to suspect that that the exaltations may have an ancient tropical logic - otherwise why choose Aries as the exaltation of the Sun, and put others very near the solstice and equinox points? I raised this issue in the Philosophy forum, as it was just speculation. But what if I want to attempt a mystery chart using traditional sidereal rulerships and traditional tropical exaltations? Where do I post?

Most sidereal astrologers, I'd say, are traditionalists. Even the many discussions about ayanamsa, coincidence etc are usually about what the original, tradtional ones really were. And the reason traditional sidereal astrologers want to participate in this forum is because they don't find the same thing elsewhere. The range of techniques discussed, and the freedom not to toe the line of a particular school or master, are precious. The last post from Varuna shows, I think, exactly why we're here (and I fully agree with Mark's response to it).

Graham

Mark wrote:Hello Varuna,

You seem to have entirely misunderstood the context of this discussion. We are not discussing Indian astrology at all here. Quite the reverse! My point was that it doesn't belong in this particular forum. Your opinions about western scholarship's views of Indian culture are completely irrelevant here.

Your comment about the tropical zodiac is frankly risible. I know you love turning your support for siderealism into a holy crusade but we are trying to have a serious, calm discussion here without indulging in emotive megaphone posting. As you dont practice traditional astrology in the western way I am not clear why you think your views have any relevance to the direction of this forum.

I consider it low-brow to start suggesting the measuring point of which star is the reference point of a sidereal zodiac, to represent sui generis sidereal zodiacs.

I didn't say anything about stars. Only you did. I am not trying to locate the one true sidereal ayanamsa. I simply mentioned that I think the sidereal zodiacs discussed on this forum should be recognisable as part of the horoscopic tradition often called traditional or for want of a better word 'western'. Although, I accept the Persians and Arabs are not exactly western!

Mark

Hello Mark,

I know my comments about Indian astrology are irrelevant to the specific situation here.

What we are doing here is facing a situation which is a complete mess. It will be up to us and those who come later who straighten this situation out. Many ancient texts have come to light and more will follow. Astrology is a mess and that mess is the basis of this situation. I realize I have no authority here, to take part of this discussion in the specific context, however it is the greater context of this discussion which concerns me.

The truth is that I do not attack Tropical astrology other than to turn the arguments against Sidereal back onto those who make them. The only reason I have ever even mentioned them is because these arguments are continuously happening in the astrology community and so I create counter-arguments and twist the arguments back onto those who utilize them and then air them at skyscript.

The Indians have kept track of the solstices and equinoxes from the very beginning, they based various rituals on this Solar cycle, this type of year was based on the Winter solstice, and the civil calendar was based on the autumnal equinox, however they used a luni-solar year.

The Solar cycle is extremely important to the Indian system and to jyotisha and to myself.

The method the Indians used was to keep track of the Solar cycle by using nakshatras or star constellations. The Indians were not alone in their interest with the Solar cycle, many cultures were also interested in this. We inherited a system which kept track of the Solar Cycle through the use of the stars. There were 12 Solar months, and this turned into 12 houses and signs. The Indians were using 12 solar months as far back as +9000 years ago, and they were keeping track of them by using the background of the stars and these star groups became called nakshatras.

My views of what direction skyscript or this traditional section of the forum takes, are not relevant here, as you say, this is true. I do not believe my views count here at all. However, if this forum does not allow sidereal astrology then it sounds like Martin will leave, and if Martin leaves then I will also leave, and I would hope some others will leave too.

The reality is that there are almost no people taking part of the Sidereal section of the forum, and a few who take part of the Jyotisha section.

I do not demand to be able to post in this section of the forum and I never have and I did not argue with Tom ever, but what happened with the split is that Martin was left in the corner gathering dust in almost isolation.

I believe the Jyotish section should be the only one in the sidereal section or it should be dedicated to the Fagan school.

I believe I was one of the most prolific posters in the Sidereal section, and I have only been studying astrology for a handful of years, i.e. my knowledge is almost zero. There have been a small amount of other people there, but overall the action of skyscript has always been considered to be this traditional section.

Therefore, the purely Sidereal section of the forum should be either obliterated or given to the Fagan-Bradley school of Western Sidereal, which of course is almost non-existent, but in principle this is what should happen. While at the same time leaving the Jyotish section for that type of astrology.

Kenneth Johnson practices Jyotisha with a Tropical Zodiac, should he be banished to the untitled Tropical section of the forum? Who would he visit with? And where?

The reason I brought up marking stars, is because this is the basis of Sidereal astrology. Sidereal astrology does not work based on choosing some date around 300 c.e. and basing an astrology zero point on that. This is only a misconception based on hindsight Tropical thinking. Consider the fore-mentioned Taittiriya Samhita verse from 8000 years ago. They were not basing a zero point on 285 c.e., rather they were basing their measurement system of the Solar Cycle and Lunar Cycle on the nakshatras or star constellations, and keeping track of the Sun and Moon in this way. There was no conception of some hindsight zero-point in the vernal equinox of 285 c.e.

me

Graham F wrote:

Right, and this is the sort of issue which should be in the sidereal thread. Starting a discussion about it here would support Tom's point of view.

Simply because I disagree with Tom on several points doesn't mean I have to agree with you either. I have some issues of my own I find problematic. Especially around use of Indian derived zodiacs.

So I feel you are really missing my point. I am not looking for a debate on sidereal zodiacs. I am simply not convinced Indian derived zodiacs like Lahiri or Krishnamurti have a legitimate place being here at all. Its an importatation of Indian astrology onto this forum. As an authentic transmission of traditional astrology western siderealism should have its own approach to the zodiac distinct from Indian astrology. Without that its legitimacy here is questionable.

I dont agree with Tom on several points he has raised but have little time to get into that here. I do think the argument that sidereal astrology is somehow a 'back door' to modern astrology is completely unconvincing. I find Tom's reasoning on that point incomprehensible. As you suggest I think on the whole siderealism seems to have a higher proportion of traditionalists than tropical does at present.

On a practical level I also agree whole sign houses can lead to very different delineations from those using quadrants. Although its not as radically different as a separate zodiac or sign rulership system. So there are potential management problem issues for the moderators as Tom suggests.

Tom has moderated the traditional forum tirelessly for nearly 10 years and so I think he has much better insights into the management problems this might create for moderators than many people posting here currently recognise or acknowledge.

For me the difficulties boil down to the matter of zodiacs derived outside the western tradition and how to manage this without total loss of focus or a confusing muddle of approaches developing on threads. I dont mind total eclecticism on the General Forum. However, I think the issue is more problematic here. Tom does raise a strong pragmatic issue around ensuring effective forum management and maintaining focus on threads.

Mark

varuna2 wrote: The truth is that I do not attack Tropical astrology other than to turn the arguments against it back onto those who make them.

Actually Varuna2 the truth is that you turn them on anyone - regardless of whether they make them or not. For example, nobody made them in this forum, in fact you look for reasons to introduce the tropical-sidereal debate.

The question being discussed here is where is the correct place to use sidereal astrology - is it here or some other forum. Tom raised the point that it is not here.

Clearly sidereal astrology is traditional, but then so is omen based astrology. At some point there needs to be some distinction. What I'm sure nobody wants is a division of more and more forums where we have "Modern Western Sidereal" "Traditional Western Sidereal" "Vedic Sidereal" "Tropical Western Traditional" and so on

At some point there will no doubt be overlap. But nobody at all is discussing here any issues regarding the zodiac, even if you wish to raise them whenever you believe you can. I would suggest that any further discussion of the 'debate' of the zodiacs should be removed. If you wish to argue the debates of the zodiac perhaps a new thread should be started so you can do that.