Skyscript Astrology Forum

I'm sorry there's something I don't understand. On the one hand you agree with me that tropical "observations" are dogmas and stereotypes. But on the other hand you say that the tropical traits are not only valid but are really sidereal traits all along.

I think that I'll have to disagree with Fagen here. Trying to understand the sidereal signs through tropical traits only creates more distortion because the tropical traits already are distortions themselves. I think the best thing to do is to discard the tropical zodiac entirely, along with all of the misinformation and prejudices we learned from it, and just go back the very roots of astrology.

But is Jupiter ditzy and klutzy? Generally Jupiter is prim and proper and likes to follow regulations, often being very careful about dress and protocol. Jupiter is the planet of politicians, after all.

No I wouldn't. Tropical Sagittarius makes no sense. It doesn't work for Sagittarius. But neither does it make sense for Sidereal Scorpio either. Chiria describes Sidereal Scorpio as if she was describing Tropical Sagittarius.

Speaking of Scorpios in a thread at Soluners me and another user called jamescondor describes Scorpio people in our lives. We (james especially) described Scorpios we knew with as little theory as possible. In this thread:

http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3288

Regarding tropical Gemini/sidereal Taurus and being talkative...

Ruling the throat =/= being talkative. Anyway, according to the Egyptians Scorpio ruled the throat.

And one more thing:

I'm also finding the Hellenistic triplicity lords relevant to the sidereal zodiac.

Understanding the planets and their influences are great, but if you only try to understand the signs through their planets you are taking a very reductionist approach and missing out on a lot of nuances in the sign's energies. That is why I think understand the mythology of the signs is very important also, because it shows the roles they play in our collective consciousness.

'The Hired Man' - Aries

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_aries.pdf

'The Bull Of Heaven' - Taurus

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_taurus.pdf

'The Great Twins' - Gemini

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_gemini.pdf

'The Crab' - Cancer

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_cancer.pdf

'The Lion' - Leo

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_leo.pdf

'The Maiden/Furrow - Virgo

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_virgo.pdf

'The Scales' - Libra

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_libra.pdf

'The Scorpion' - Scorpio

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_scorpio.pdf

'Pabilsag' - Sagittarius

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_sagittarius.pdf

'The Goatfish' - Capricorn

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_capricorn.pdf

'The Great One' - Aquarius

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_aquarius.pdf

'The Tail' - Pisces

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_pisces.pdf

Esoteric astrology is also very important I think. And the signs and many other things can be found here.

http://www.light-weaver.com/astrology/toc.html

Bogdan574 wrote:I'm sorry there's something I don't understand. On the one hand you agree with me that tropical "observations" are dogmas and stereotypes. But on the other hand you say that the tropical traits are not only valid but are really sidereal traits all along.

Signs as we know them today are a mixture of accurate observation and theory, some valid and some of little or no value. So along with accuracy we also have beliefs, dogmas and stereotypes. It's all a grand mixture at this point in time.

I think the best thing to do is to discard the tropical zodiac entirely, along with all of the misinformation and prejudices we learned from it, and just go back the very roots of astrology.

That is one approach. I'm all for combining the accurate observations we do have with a study of planetary symbolism and ancient myth.

Chiria describes Sidereal Scorpio as if she was describing Tropical Sagittarius.

Yes, but she has based her comments on people she knows with planetary emphasis in Sagittarius.

We (james especially) described Scorpios we knew with as little theory as possible. In this thread:

http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3288

Oh, you're from Solunars, Jim Eshelman's site. I can check out the link.

Ruling the throat =/= being talkative. Anyway, according to the Egyptians Scorpio ruled the throat.

According to what Cyril Fagan BELIEVED about Egyptian rulership. I think he's missed the boat there, but I don't have time to do the research needed to show he could have been wrong. Fagan went off the deep end on a few points, but nevertheless he's the father of contemporary sidereal astrology in the west.

I do have Gavin White's book. Quite excellent and a wonderful source of Mesopotamian myth. Good to see excerpts on Skyscript.

Signs as we know them today are a mixture of accurate observation and theory, some valid and some of little or no value. So along with accuracy we also have beliefs, dogmas and stereotypes. It's all a grand mixture at this point in time.

If that is true than that may be all the more reason to go back to the roots and remove all of our preconceptions.

Yes, but she has based her comments on people she knows with planetary emphasis in Sagittarius.

I'm a little skeptical. It sounds a lot by the book.

Bogdan574 wrote:

Therese: Yes, but [Chiria] has based her comments on people she knows with planetary emphasis in Sagittarius.

Bogdan574: I'm a little skeptical. It sounds a lot by the book.

This may also be an indication that oft repeated observations have some basis in fact. So I don't believe we should throw out more than a century of observation (20th century) only because it's combined with material that is highly questionable and should probably be discarded.

As I said, the problem is that it's all mixed together, and astrologers aren't particularly skilled at separating truth from fiction.

A note on Fagan's "Egyptian" concept of flipping sign rulership of parts of the body. A portion of Hellenistic astrology comes from Egyptian sources, and there is no support for Fagan's idea. We have many translations now of foundation astrological texts that were not available when Cyril Fagan was alive. These texts have been translated by Robert Schmidt, Robert Hand, Benjamin Dykes, James Holden and others.

It would be helpful to correct Fagan's idea on Solunars if this hasn't been done already.

Bogdan, I spent a few minutes on Solunars, and I see why you would like to start all over again with zodiac signs. I have to admit my head starts to spin when reading and trying to remember lists of sign traits such as Jim Eshleman has on Solunars. I really do believe that it's best to simply understand the nature of the energy in each sign, and then study how that energy influences planets placed there.

You have a huge stellium in Sagittarius. What does that mean? Perhaps not much. I've studied stelliums in sidereal Sagittarius, and haven't found a coherent picture, except that the underlying energy is internal. Sagittarius acts from its own internal motivation. People with this sign prominent are often quiet as they don't feel the need to be extroverted or have a lot of excitement going on with other people. They just go about diligently working in their area of interest or expertise.

Sagittarius' perception and experience are through the mind rather than the emotions. I've noticed there is the Jupiter trait of not liking to be told it's wrong about something. Sagittarius does represent the heights and wants to stay there. Zeus was king of the gods after all. Greek mythology of the planets does seem to be related to the sidereal signs in a general way. This is why ancient astrologers placed various planets as guardians for each zodiac sign. We have so much research to do to figure it all out!! http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/APlanets.htm

A planetary stellium has to be taken apart and the interrelationships of planets analyzed. In your case it would be productive to consider:

Venus conjunct Mercury
Mercury conjunct Venus and Uranus
Moon conjunct Neptune
Then through dispositorship all that Sagittarian energy is moved to Cancer in the 3rd. (Jupiter in Cancer)
You also have Uranus and Ketu on your navamsa ascendant. This may make you seem strange or unusual to others. It's a highly psycic combination, but can also be too open to external influences, real or imagined.

I haven't found that the Moon in zodiac signs means much of anything. Sometimes the lunar mansions can be helpful. The Moon is receptive and will be influenced by planets in aspect to it. So your Moon is most closely conjoined to Neptune. That would be your prominent emotional and mental nature.

I recently read an interview with Jyotish astrologer James Braha. He said his favorite book on psychological interpretation was Isabel Hickey's Astrology, A Cosmic Science (1970) The author was a tropical astrologer who was also a psychic sensitive. In general, her aspect interpretations are quite good. Charles Carter's The Astrological Aspects (revised 1967) is also a helpful reference. But always, feel free to question "the experts."

Hi Bogdan, Therese and others,

an interesting discussion about the nature of the sidereal signs - an eternal topic, it seems.

In the last months I?ve been doing these statistical studies where I?ve taken a lot of different groups from the now defunct AstroDatabank software and studied all kinds of things with them. For now I have 273 different groups ranging from personality traits to professions to diseases to family issues, sized from nine to 1500+ charts.

The method is to let the Jigsaw software calculate the astrological parameters of those groups and compare the results to those given by a large amount of randomly generated ?birth times?. Further information about the general procedure can be found in this thread http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7694 .

Recently I completed a large study about the sidereal signs. The results were really interesting. As a spoiler I can say that they support Bogdan more than Therese or Chiria. But the main point is that the traits of the signs can most clearly be seen in the ascending signs. They can also be seen in the sign of the MC. But what is notable is that planets, stelliums, etc. in signs do not give much insight into the nature of the signs. It might be because planets affect the nature of the signs they are located in, not the other way out. For example Mars in Gemini does not become ?Gemini-like?. Maybe in that case Gemini becomes more ?Mars-like?.

Here?s an example. Let?s look at Taurus that Bogdan pulled out. Here is the top-20 of the 273 groups I went through that most often have Taurus as the ascending sign. The first column is the sample size, the second is the name of the group, the third column is the observed result, the fourth is the expected value (from the same amount of random charts), the fifth column is the difference between the observed and the expected result, and the last column is the p-value that measures the statistical significance of the result, ranging from 0-1. The smaller the p-value is, the bigger the effect. I've put groups showing some kind of a common theme in green.
Practical / realistic personalities, private personalities, vulnerable personalities, anxious people, people spent their whole life in the same location, counselors, therapists and psychiatrists. This is not like tropical Gemini at all. There are TV personalities and talkative people, but that is not the general tone of the results.

As a comparison here is the list of the top-20 groups having any of the seven traditional planets (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury or the Moon) most often in sidereal Taurus. For example the first row means that we have 39 persons with Parkinson?s disease that have total of 37 planets in Taurus, when the expected value from a random group of the same size would be 21 or 22.
As you can see, it?s much harder to find a general theme.

It?s the same with every sign. Another example might be Scorpio that is also represented in the discussion at hand. Here?s the top-20 list of the groups having Scorpio as the most frequent ascending sign:
This is very well in line with what Bogdan (and Valens and Rhetorius) wrote. We must remember that in ancient astrology the ascending sign was the most important one in a horoscope, not the Sun sign as in modern astrology.

Then, if we look at the groups having most often one or several of the seven traditional planets in sidereal Scorpio, we get again a more diverse list without a unifying general theme:
So, the bottom line would seem to be that looking for stelliums is not a very fruitful way to find out the traits of the signs, tropical or sidereal, possibly because planets seem to affect the signs, not the other way out. Supposedly planets don?t get colored by signs, but signs get colored by planets located in them. Therefore the modern approach of looking for planetary emphasis in signs works neither tropically nor sidereally. What we should look for is dignities. For example Indian friendships and enmities would seem to give very promising results.

It seems that the same thing applies with the nakshatras: they work very well with the Moon as lunar mansions, and exactly as the texts describe, but it?s not very fruitful to use them as ?signs? with other planets.

Papretis wrote: It seems that the same thing applies with the nakshatras: they work very well with the Moon as lunar mansions, and exactly as the texts describe, but it?s not very fruitful to use them as ?signs? with other planets.

Hi Papretis,

You may want to look at 3 texts on nakshatras.

Ravana Samhita
Lunar Mansions by Mohan Koparkar
Nakshatra by K.T. Shubhakaran

Here is an excerpt from Vol. 1 of Nakshatra by Shubhakaran, for example:

Shubhakaran wrote:
Rahu [in Jyeshtha nakshatra]

1st quarter (226.40 degree to 230 degree): Rahu in this quarter gives two wives and it is certain when ascendant also falls here. Longevity of the first child is doubtful. If this combination is aspected by malefics, the native will die within 7 years.

IInd quarter (230.00 degree to 233.20 degree): The native will be cruel and deceitful. He may not hesitate to deceive even his own parents and co-borns. Will have frequent sexual acts with base women, inspite of the fact that the native has a sickly body.

IIIrd quarter (233.20 degree to 236.40 degree): While the native has the ability to express his ideas and make others understand them, he has to live in a dilapidated condition.

IVth quarter (236.40 degree to 240 degree): The native will be discarded by his family members. Will have a sickly body. Cunning and deceitful disposition.

Those 3 texts all delineate the different planets in the nakshatras, only not in the way someone would interpret the nakshatra characteristics and apply them the same way to each planet, rather the planets are portrayed as functioning differently depending on which nakshatra, or in the example given which nakshatra pada, they are in.

Here is by contrast, the results of Moon in Jyeshtha nakshatra, by comparison in contrast to Rahu in Jyeshtha nakshatra, according to Shubhakaran:

Shubhakaran wrote:
Moon [in Jyeshtha]

If Moon in this Nakshatra is aspected by the Sun, the native will be kind to the person approaching him for help, but his overall mentality will be of a cruel type, enjoys power and authority from the government; if Mars aspects the native will have teeth and ear problem, lives by depending on certain section of the society; if Mercury aspects, enjoys name and fame and all comforts of life; if Jupiter aspects, becomes highly learned and imparts knowledge to others; if Venus aspects, he will enjoy company of ladies, will be wealthy; if Saturn aspects, his health will be poor, unkind to others and not lucky to have good children.

Ist quarter (226.40 degree to 230.00 degree): If malefic planets aspects Moon in this quarter, death takes place due to fire or weapons. Any prediction about the child born in this quarter should be made only after one year's of age of the child, as there is danger to life up to 1 year from the birth.

IInd quarter (230.00 degree to 233.20 degree): When Saturn aspects Moon in this quarter, the native is selfish, hates his elder brother, becomes a hypocrite, but lives happily. The native is hot-tempered, indulges too much in sexual acts with ladies not belonging to him.

IIIrd quarter (233.20 degree to 236.40 degree): If Saturn is also placed here, the native is fond of elderly women and is expert in sastras. He has a wicked wife. He will abuse his parents and will be devoid of wealth.

IVth quarter (236.40 degree to 240.00 degree): If ascendant is placed in Hasta nakshatra with Jupiter also in Hasta, that native will lose his wife or her husband as the case may be. However, they are much educated and highly placed in profession, preferably as a doctor or a scientist. In addition to the misery of separation, they will have to suffer much mental tension due to their child.

Regardless of whether we are looking at the Moon or Rahu in Jyeshtha, we can notice Shubhakaran interprets Jyeshtha with the traditional classification idea of Jyeshtha being Tikshna (sharp) and Daruna (horrible), but not necessarily with each planet in each pada. I am not sure if Shubhakaran also was influenced by the Sign (Scorpio) in these attributes, although he does state further traditional teachings of Jyeshtha attributed to deaths of siblings or parents depending on which planets and which padas they are in, somewhat influenced by gandanta sandhi perhaps, although that was usually considered to be the first and last navamsha padas, Jyeshtha padas in general are treated as harming, generally speaking, but with positive points also.

There may be more texts than this that interpret planets other than the Moon in the nakshatras, but those are the three I know of, if someone knows of more please mention which ones.

Varuna2,
thank you for you comment. I had forgot that I've actually seen similar interpretations at some point. But as you wrote, "the planets are portrayed as functioning differently depending on which nakshatra, or in the example given which nakshatra pada, they are in". So, actually we might look at other planets than the Moon in the nakshatras too as long as we don't fall into the "Mars in Jyestha becomes Jyestha-like" type of interpretation.

Hi Papretis,

Is your right hand column the p-values? P-value generally means the odds that a given finding is due to chance as opposed to a true correlation (this can be verbalized a myriad of ways but this is generally what it means). In general, findings with p-values > 0.05 are not considered statistically significant and wouldn't be further utilized in formal statistical analyses. Certainly, findings with p-values of 0.99 are, essentially, almost certainly due to chance by definition. In other words, analysing groupings of such findings wouldn't be undertaken, as these would just represent trying to find patterns in groupings of random collections. For a small fee, you can likely hire a statistician to vet your data.

Phil

Papretis wrote:Varuna2,
thank you for you comment. I had forgot that I've actually seen similar interpretations at some point. But as you wrote, "the planets are portrayed as functioning differently depending on which nakshatra, or in the example given which nakshatra pada, they are in". So, actually we might look at other planets than the Moon in the nakshatras too as long as we don't fall into the "Mars in Jyestha becomes Jyestha-like" type of interpretation.

You are welcome.

I have questions also if you do not mind.

Why did you test National Socialists as a category, and what is the significance of National Socialists that would stand out as being possibly Scorpio type, out of all of the political movements in the world from any place or time?

You do realize that one had to be a National Socialist to retain a position of influence in that place and time, just as people in varied places must pledge their allegiance to the government of wherever they live, and by law usually, depending on the place and the position of influence in that place and time.

Therefore, it would be like creating a category of people in the government of China and expect to find astrological similarities with one sign, or to create a category of U.S. politicians and expect them all to be Scorpios or some such sign.

Who were those National Socialists in your list and did you include people such as Martin Heidegger?

Phil wrote:Hi Papretis,

Is your right hand column the p-values? P-value generally means the odds that a given finding is due to chance as opposed to a true correlation (this can be verbalized a myriad of ways but this is generally what it means). In general, findings with p-values > 0.05 are not considered statistically significant and wouldn't be further utilized in formal statistical analyses. Certainly, findings with p-values of 0.99 are, essentially, almost certainly due to chance by definition. In other words, analysing groupings of such findings wouldn't be undertaken, as these would just represent trying to find patterns in groupings of random collections. For a small fee, you can likely hire a statistician to vet your data.

Phil

Hi Phil,

thanks for your comment. Yes, I know that the single p-values in this study or in similar studies I?ve done are not statistically significant as such. I?ve used p-value here in a bit unorthodox way, as a measure to find out the results that might possibly give some hints about something. In other words, the single results here mean nothing, but when you go through 273 different groups, and the top-20 results with a positive effect giving the smallest p-values (thought these p-values are not statistically significant as such) show some kind of a visible common theme (which of course might be considered a subjective opinion), that might point to something. Especially when it happens times and times again.

This way of studying is at least as much qualitative as quantitative ? as astrology always is. What is the probability of having 20 groups out of 270 so that about half of them show some kind of connection to rebelliousness and violence, like in the Scorpio rising example above? Of course, if about 50 % of all of those 273 groups had a connection to rebelliousness and violence, then that would naturally be inevitable. But that is not the case, which you can see by looking through a few more signs and the results that they give.

First Aries:
The groups having Aries as the (proportionally) most frequent rising sign show similar sharp, Martian themes as the Scorpio rising people: courageous people, hard workers, disciplined personalities, highly educated people, critics. We can also see the darker side of Mars in people who have been physically / verbally abusive parents, prisoners, assaulters, murderers or thieves.

Next we will look at people who have Gemini as the most frequent rising sign when compared to a random control group:
Creativity is one of the main themes here. Directors, architects, cartoonists, pop / rock singers and opera singers. Also aesthetics and beauty: gorgeous looking people, fashion designers, beauty queens & kings. Then is intellectual beauty and harmony: mathematicians, physicists and perfectionists. Again we would seem to have a distinctive type.

Then comes Cancer:
This may not be so clear as the previous signs, but there emerges some kind of a mysterious and independent picture: on the other hand we have mystical personalities, alternative healers (also physicians), and people with mystical experiences, on the other hand we have moving people (like the Moon that moves fast): people moved a lot, soldiers, private pilots, diplomats, combats. The results reflect the nature of the Moon: moving, changing, mysteriously proceeding on its way.

Next Leo rising:
Courage and adventurousness might be the central themes here: outdoor people, race drivers, NASA astronauts, possibly also biologists. The darker side of the theme is people with a sexually transmitted disease and alcohol abuse. This is classic Fire / Leo stuff IMO.

Next Virgo as the most frequent rising sign:
Practicality and Earthy materialism: real estate agents, producers, top executives, outdoor people, people spent their whole life in the same location, persistent personalities. One might think that obsessive / compulsive disorder would be tropical Virgo stuff, but it?s actually sidereal Virgo that shows up here. Also celibates have sidereal Virgo rising slightly more often than averagely. The effect is way too small to be statistically significant as such, but together with the other results, it is interesting.

I hope you have got some kind of idea of what I'm trying to do here. I?m not claiming that any of the results I?ve got would be statistically significant as such at all. It?s the bigger picture, the qualitative picture that doesn't seem random to me, but would seem to give a pattern. Could these results be a mere chance? Could it be a mere chance that the rising signs seem to give a certain characteristic types, and not only that, but these types would seem to reflect astrological tradition actually quite well (except for being extracted by using the sidereal zodiac, not tropical)? Or is it so that I only see what I want to see (which unfortunately applies to astrology too often)?