Stefan wrote:Paul

I do share your wiews here.
This was not intended to be some kind of "proof" that the sidereal zodiac is the correct one. For me it was done initially done as a reaction to the aproach on the tropical vedic thread to post singular charts and then compare. Often with very narrow parameters. Such as posting a chart of a teenager with some physical problems and compare few astrological factors. Who knows what this teenage girl grow up to becoming later in her life as reflected in the whole chart.

I understand Stefan, my post, for clarity, isn't a criticism of your post but just more a hope that we can all work toward a community where we don't feel the need to compete our zodiacs, but equally find respect and understanding between those who hold other views. Of course our curiosity on the matter and our desire to explore both is never going to go away, and nor should it, so I understand why these things happen. I read a lot of these kinds of threads with great interest because of course it's somewhat the elephant in the room in a community which has astrologers of both persuasions. So I hope my post didn't come off as a rebuke or anything like that, just that we be cautious in any conclusions we might make from any isolated examples like this. I don't know if you saw the posts myself and Therese made on the thread I linked to it in my previous reply, I can't remember everyone who replied on it, but you'll see a similar approach where a given chart is isolated with a focus on some sign description, but we could argue some other placement, like an angular planet, is more persuasive etc.

Besides it is great fun to see which charts turn coming up for. With a
an 8th house sun, mercury and Jupiter I enjoy it very much. Here one is able to dig and discover and learn,looking at charts continually. It is also a way of learning things.

I'm with you there, and I have my fair share of 8th house placements too. I don't want to over-egg the pudding as it were, so I don't want to over-emphasise my point, but just make sure we all know that this is light hearted - this is as much for the people who are reading this but don't participate of course.

And as you say these things really don't prove anything.
But this is not an academic institution either. But a forum of astrological
wiewpoints and perspectives to be vented and discussed.

Of course, I say this only because some of the language used here may come across like a survey or systematic report of astrological placement via the ADB database, and so can have the veneer of studiousness, but of course my point is just that it's important we recognise these things don't really demonstrate anything other than talking points and things of interest to discuss - certainly they don't point to any evidence one way or another. And whilst you and I may know that, I know from experience that there will be those who read this and are blown away by all this and think it's essentially a statistical analysis.
When you consider this quote from Therese I think you can understand that many may see this as indeed being an attempt to provide evidence for some theory or proof:
"This search plus other zodiac searches I have done supports the energy observed in the tropical zodiac (This is the ecliptic area of tropical Aries.), but activities and interests relate more to sidereal sign lords. "


I don't discourage it at all of course, but I think it's worth pointing out that really interesting as it is, we need to not make any conclusions about the zodiacs from this kind of survey. That said, it could well be a starting point for further research if some interesting pattern emerges.

I remember discussing Hitler's chart with a sidereal astrologer, I can't remember who, it may well have been yourself or someone else on one of the forums, and realising that the very reasons he found Hitler's chart descriptive sidereally were the ones I found it compelling in tropical. He pointed out Mars in sidereal Aries rather than sidereal Taurus, and to me that was a boon for tropical for various reasons. So even if we eliminated the problem of the zodiac, I wonder even if we all used the exact same zodiac if we wouldn't approach the charts differently that may be even more interesting to explore when you think of it than the zodiac we use.

Therese Hamilton wrote: The search in my files asked for the Sun, Moon, Mercury and Venus and/or Mars in Pisces. Out of the entire databank only 19 charts fit those parameters. (If anyone wants the data for these charts, I can forward data in an email.) I eliminated the homosexual charts that showed up in the search because I know from many other searches that gay charts will always come up in a search due to the large number of those charts in ADB.

...

Out of the huge database of more than 50,000 charts, there were only 23 charts that fit those parameters. As usual, I eliminated gay charts.

Hi Therese

I must admit, I don't quite follow why you eliminate the homosexual charts. Can you explain? You say because there are so many gay charts you removed this as a category. From this, I think you mean you don't want to imply that homosexuality shows up more than normal for, say, a stellium in Pisces.

If so, it begs the question, should you, for example, perform the same operations for each search but for each zodiac sign and then rather than list the results for Pisces, list which ones appear more or less than the average for, say, non Pisces indications.

I hope this make sense. Otherwise I'm not sure what logic applies to homosexual tags that wouldn't for any other tag.

Paul wrote:

I'm not sure why the implication is for these posts, but my assumption is that these are offered as evidence toward the supremacy of the sidereal perspective

Paul, this is an example of a wrong slant placed on posts here on the sidereal forum. I don't know if I have ever used the word "supremacy" or "proof" in my posts here. Originally when I tried to post sidereal notes on the tropical part of this forum, some members went into "attack mode" rather than carefully reading what I wrote. So Deb formed a sidereal section of the forum where we could talk freely.

The sidereal zodiac has been poorly understood in the tropical community. So most if not all of my posts have been meant to demonstrate the principles of the sidereal zodiac, especially how planetary traits show through in signs. We all know that it may be a cold day in Hell before certain proofs for astrology surface.

We are having conversations and demonstrations here on the sidereal forum. We are trying to honestly explore certain astrological principles. We're not talking "proof" or "supremacy" at this stage of the game. Any tropical astrologer is welcome to post "extreme zodiac" examples of how the tropical zodiac works.

This morning I've only had time to quickly scan posts, so there might be points in recent posts to respond to later.

Therese

Therese Hamilton wrote: Paul, this is an example of a wrong slant placed on posts here on the sidereal forum. I don't know if I have ever used the word "supremacy" or "proof" in my posts here. Originally when I tried to post sidereal notes on the tropical part of this forum, some members went into "attack mode" rather than carefully reading what I wrote. So Deb formed a sidereal section of the forum where we could talk freely.

Hi Therese

I was quite careful in my post and was even more moderate in my reply to Stefan to try to ensure that I am not taken up to be saying something I am not. What I am saying is that it's too easy to read these kinds of posts as an attempt to demonstrate some validity to the sidereal zodiac which is lacking in the tropical.

Unfortunately the thread is littered with comparisons to, say, tropical lords with explanations of why those are all incorrect and the sidreal lords are correct. This is not, as you say, simply an exercise in demonstrating the principles of the sidereal zodiac, except to highlight that those principles are such that the tropical zodiac is in fact the sidereal one and the tropical lords are erroneous with the sidereal ones being correct. If you look at your posts here you will see examples of what I mean. Here's a few:

supports the energy observed in the tropical zodiac ... but activities and interests relate more to sidereal sign lords ... tropical observations of sign energies are valid, but these energies seem to match the planets associated with sidereal signs...
Of course these are only a few cases, and we need more data

This alone seems to sum up some of what I am urging caution about entertaining too far here. Namely that the focus doesn't become about convincing ourselves we are undergoing a statistical analysis to demonstrate that tropical zodiac signs are in fact merely sidereal ones with the wrong title. You say you are not talking about "proof" at this stage of the game, but when we talk of "more data samples" it's clear that this search for evidence is very much in the spirit of posts like this - is it a later 'stage of the game'?

In a subsequent post you in essence reiterate the real aim here which is to demonstrate that the tropical lords are erroneous:

Sidereal Pisces Sun conjunct Pisces Ascendant
...
Except for the two sportsmen, none of these occupations can be specifically related to Mars. (Aries is the tropical ascendant with the Sun in this zodiacal area.

Regularly tropical and sidereal is juxtaposed side by side to demonstrate the fallacy of the tropical lords. More examples include:

As a ?militant Lesbian Feminist? tropical astrologers could easily point to her Ascendant, Sun and Mercury in Aries. They will be emphasizing the ?militant? however, and forgetting that as a Lesbian feminist, she is highlighting her female gender. Aries is a male sign while Pisces is female. Venus is also in Pisces in Valerie?s sidereal chart.

If I am incorrect, then great, I am more than happy to be. I may have missed some reference in which tropical lords are juxtaposed with sidereal ones not to make the case implicitly or otherwise about tropical lords failing according to the apparent statistical analysis from the ADB database. However, I have read these pots carefully and in every instance in which I could find a reference to a tropical lord it was introduced to apparently dismiss it in favour of a sidereal lord. Am I incorrect?

I think it's great to have a sidereal forum and focus on sidereal approaches to astrology, my point is two fold though:
That we try to do it without using tropical astrology as the foil of the piece.
That we recognise the illusory nature of these apparently statistical approaches to studying these qualities.

I don't wish to suggest that conversations like this shouldn't happen, only hope to express greater moderation in how we discuss them.

Paul wrote:

What I am saying is that it's too easy to read these kinds of posts as an attempt to demonstrate some validity to the sidereal zodiac which is lacking in the tropical.

But why is that a problem?? This is a sidereal forum, after all. If tropical astrologers don't want to demonstrate principles in the same way, that is their choice. I have spent more than 40 years studying the zodiacs, and Skyscript is a place where I can post my findings and research. I've spent a lot of time writing about various small research projects, but no one has said "thank you," or even noted (in comment) the research here on the forum.

I don't quite understand why the tropical moderators on Skyscript come over to the sidereal forum anyway? I wish Martin would take more of a presence here. (For those new to Skyscript, Martin Gansten is the moderator of the sidereal forum here on Skyscript.)

Your posts are so long, Paul, that I have to wait until later to carefully read them. It would help if you could be more concise with words.

Therese

Therese

A couple of things. Firstly, if this thread is really meant to be about showcasing the fallacies of the tropical lords in comparison to the sidereal ones, at least let's be clear and say so, and when I come on to highlight it, let's at least not disagree that this is the focus.

That said, I really don't think we should devolve the sidereal forum into a place in which the tropical and sidereal zodiacs are endlessly compared with cherry picked examples to highlight that the tropical zodiac falls short. Using the tropical zodiac as a foil like this simply isn't why this forum was created. I would urge you to recognise that this actually takes away from the great things that can happen with this forum, and as place for sidereal astrologers to simply focus on sidereal matters, without having to elbow the tropical zodiac to do it.

I would encourage you to read this sticky in which everyone is reminded that this isn't the place to compare the sidereal and tropical zodiacs:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6581

I don't quite understand why the tropical moderators on Skyscript come over to the sidereal forum anyway?

I am posting simply as a poster who wishes to encourage more moderation in tone between both sidereal and tropical astrologers. Or at the very least if we wish to have a discussion and debate about these matters that we be open about what we're doing. Instead too often many posts start appearing to be one thing, but quickly are revealed just another attempt to demonstrate the fallacies of tropical astrology. Surely we can do better than this?
(It's also worth keeping in mind that the moderators, including Martin, do so in their own free time as best as their time allows them. Sometimes matters are such that any forum member, moderator or not, cannot participate as much as they would like)

Your posts are so long, Paul, that I have to wait until later to carefully read them. It would help if you could be more concise with words.

I'm sorry you think so, I do try to be concise. I note some of your own threads are exceptionally long so perhaps you will at least sympathise.

To be clear, I only post to urge that we can hopefully make compelling cases without recourse to making strong blanket statements, backed up with the illusion of statistical research, that other zodiacs or approaches are somehow erroneous or fallacious. We can of course discuss our preferences and I encourage everyone to post more on this forum and demonstrate the great sidereal astrology that I have witnessed by some sidereal astrologers (yourself and Stefan in particular, whose posts I've read on other forums, included). But perhaps we can recognise ways in doing this without devaluing the approaches of others.

Take a look at the chart and give your reading.
Natal chart and 9th harmonic are with krishnamurti ayanamsa
Ayanamsa value in the chart.
Sorry, the charts look too big.

* I removed the charts but giving the longitudes in my next post


Thanks and

regards
map

Due to my small computer screen and the wide screen distortion caused by the large charts, I can't read or post on this topic. Map, do you think you can find a way to make your charts smaller?

Do not know to what size i have to Prune. Therefore, i deleted the charts.
Let me give the krishnamurthy longittudes of the natal chart:
Asc(Leo):7:23
Moon(Leo):3:22
Sat(Virgo): 20:19
Ketu(Libra): 11:59
Venus(Scorpio):24:50
Sun(Saggi):23:18
Mercury(saggi):1:01
Mars(Pisces):13:25
Jupiter(Pisces): 23:56

Krishnamurthy ayanamsa:22:15:49

In 9th Harmonic:
1 - Mercury
2-Moon
3 - Asc
4 - Sat & Rahu
7 - Sun
8 - mars
10-Ketu
11 - Jup & Venus

map

Map, you didn't come up with an accurate chart for Sister Jacinta. You haven't given full birth data for your chart which we need to check the calculations with our own software. Could you please post the chart data? I personally don't read blind charts without life information about a person. But perhaps someone else might want to look at the chart.

Thank you for deleting the big charts.

Therese

Therese Hamilton wrote:Stefan wrote about Reveti (16?40' to 30? sidereal Pisces):

"They are sweet caring responsible loving friends. They nourish and care for others. They have been known to provide foster care for others, children or animals. They have an affinity or love towards small animals. They love humanity and society. They love to be social because they sincerely love connecting to other people. They don?t have a mean or jealous bone in their body. There is a love of fine arts and they can be creative as well. Their caring for others can lead to co-dependency. There is a deep devotion and faith to God. They are protected in all their travels especially the journey from this world to the next."

Reading these Reveti traits, two thoughts came to mind:
(1) Since these are traits said to be related to the actual stars in the sky, these same traits would also be in tropical Aries in (approximately) the middle decanate of that sign.

(2) Why do these traits apply to Sister Jacinta, but apparently not to Valerie Solanas (militant Lesbian feminist) whose chart was posted earlier on this topic? First I looked at the two navamsas:

Sister Jacinata's navamsa Sun and Moon in Scorpio go to her natal 9th house.
Valerie's Sun, Ketu and Mercury in Aquarius fall in her natal 12th house.

The ascendant lord in both charts is Jupiter. In Jacinta's chart Jupiter is on the navamsa Sagittarius ascendant, and in the 10th with the M.C. and Ketu in the natal chart.

Valerie's navamsa Jupiter is in Mars-ruled Aries, and close in degree to her natal explosive natal Uranus/Mars conjunction.

Then if we look at the Egyptian terms: (Which I use in conjunction with Jyotish techniques.)
Valerie's Ascendant, Sun and Mercury fall in the terms of Mars, Mars being with Uranus in Aries.
Jacinta's Sun and ascendant fall in the terms of Mercury, Mercury being with Venus (the exalted planet of Pisces). But this conjunction is in sidereal Aries, which seems to indicate that planets have a greater influence than signs.

Also, of course, the Moons are in different lunar mansions in the two natal charts. Comparing Jacinta's chart with Valerie's indicates the complexity of astrology needed for synthesis, and why it takes many years of study to even begin to master astrology. For myself, I've found it quite useful to use Egyptian terms in the sidereal zodiac, and then consider the placement and aspects of the ruler of each term that holds a planet. (Using the term ruler as a dispositor.)

Thanks Therese for your insightful and deep analyses. It is fun to see your use of Navamsha chart.

I would add some things I notice.
Your sister have a nice aspected moon by benefics (Cheerfulness) Strong Jupiter (in navamsha too - strongest planet on asc.
This is helpful for good character.
Her calling as a religious renunciate is fascinating with Ketu spritual planet in 10H. That is common. Also Saturn neptune (renunciation) aspects to MC.


Valerie Solana have when looking at Nakshatra's her chart ruler and 10H ruler Jupiter in Nakshatra Mula. Which is somewhat potentially destructive.
Mula is ruled by goddess "Nivritti" associated with "Kali".
This in combination with bad placements for mental health was important.
Mercury in pisces debilitation combust. Also in declination with Saturn and Neptune.


Moon in 8H (whole sign) aspected by Mars (whole sign aspect).
Moon conjunct Saturn in navamsha.
And as you say sister Jacinta have different moon nakshatras.
Jacinta have nice Chitra nakshatra (charming). And Valerie have nakshatra Vishaka which can when being negative give mental fixations (Hitler for example had his moon in Vishaka.)

.


In the Solar Fire search before, I did not have a hit for Virgo.

Now I listed several planets in virgo and one chart did pop up.

Writer William Faulkner. This could be a chart to look at later on ?

Asc. GEMINI

VIRGO planets:
*SU
*MO
*ME
*VE
*JU
*MA

A totally Mercury dominated chart.....


S