Therese Hamilton

Nice photo, Mark, and great shirt color, but I would have expected to see you wearing one of those jaunty Scottish caps that our local Scotsman here in town is never without.

Thanks Therese. After nearly 9 years here on Skyscript I felt it was time to make an appearance! I dont think I will be wearing one of those caps though. I hate to disappoint you but its a bit like expecting your typical Englishman to wear a bowler hat.

As a siderealist, we don't pay attention to a disparity between signs and seasons because the seasons really have no place in sidereal astrology. Seasons are strictly tropical. I think it's important to make that clear.

Clearly that is the stance of modern sidereal astrologers. However, it is very hard to deny that seasonal and sidereal considerations were not seen as rigidly separate in ancient astrology. Going back to Babylonian astrology for example we know the beginning of their zodiac originally started with the Pleiades in sidereal Taurus and only later shifted to sidereal Aries. Similarly, the starting point of the Indian nakshatras or lunar mansions seems to have shifted more than once. Both these shifts in sidereal order seem to be a reflection of the ancients desire to align their asterisms to seasonal changes. Ancient cultures were dependent on seasonal cycles for their very survival so they clearly would have utilised the stars as seasonal markers. Due to the effects of precession over long periods of time this required changes to the asterisms aligned to the seasons.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

There isn't really much debate left on the ayanamsa either.

Perhaps not on Skyscript. We hardly have a thriving community of siderealists here or in the west in general. But if you look at the wider world of sidereal astrology today this issue does seem to generate incessant heated discussion on the Indian astrology forums I have looked at. Its comparable to the diversity of opinion on house systems amongst tropical astrologers. Here are some sidereal 'zodiacs' I have seen proposed by siderealists:

Ayanamsa used in South Asian astrology
Lahiri
Raman
Chandra-Hari
Vakya
Thirukanitham
Krishnamurti
Ushashashi
Yukteshwar
JN Bhasin
Dulakara
Krushna
Dhira
Tarun Chopra

Ayanamsa based on assumed Babylonian Ayanamsa
Fagan/Bradley
Babylonian, Huber
Babylonian, Kugler 1
Babylonian, Kugler 2
Babylonian, Kugler 3
Babylonian, Mercier
Aldebaran at 15 Taurus

Others
Sassanian
Galactic Center
Hipparchos
Djwal Khul


Lahiri was proposed by the Indian government as an attempt to reform the calendar and standardise civil dating across India. As a consequence many Indians astrologers adopted it as their ayanamsa. However, many other ayanamsa are proposed by Indian astrologers. Indeed many astrologers in the south of India never used Lahiri to begin with! One ayanamsa that seems to be getting more popular in India today is that of K Chandra-Hari based on calculation from the ancient Indian nakshatra of mula.

We had a full discussion on the historical and contemporary diversity of ayanamsa in Indian astrology over on the sidereal forum in this thread:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 4e74d5ca59

Here in the west the relatively small community of siderealists obviously leaves much less scope for such lively discussions. However, you do find passionate supporters of the Fagan/Bradley or other proposed Babylonian zodiacs vs Indian zodiacs such as Lahiri, Krishnamurti etc.

Therese Hamilton:

But the interpretation of sidereal signs is a hotly debated topic. At present there are no standard interpretations.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7706

There certainly seems to be a big difference between siderealists like say Ken Bowser and yourself on this. I know you have been putting a lot of effort into getting more discussion of this issue going amongst western siderealists. However, if we consider India in your comment I dont detect this issue as remotely as popular for siderealists as discussions on the various ayanamsa.

Mark

Mark wrote on Saturday evening on how to differentiate the for the Southern Hemispher. The equator has its own problems but how about assigning libra as a hot and dry instead of Aries Scorpio cold and dry et Sui generis. Then change the rulerships so. Sun cancer moon Leo etc
The. Assess the temperaments of Kylie, Pistorius et al and see what happens

sworm09 wrote:

It's pretty clear that the meanings of each zodiac sign are based on the seasonal changes in the Northern hemisphere. I would go so far as to argue that the meanings of the signs and even the major essential dignities are based entirely on the pattern of the seasons here in the Northern Hemisphere.

If the seasonal changes don't even match in all Northern hemisphere regions and are the opposite to those of the Southern hemisphere, then how can the same Tropical zodiac be used with the same meanings for all regions if the meanings for the Tropical signs come from seasonal changes in a few particular regions in the Northern hemisphere?

While the seasonal changes concerning most of the Northern hemisphere are certainly symbolic for the signs, I would say they aren't totally based on this; it's just one level of correspondence. For instance, it's hard to see how the signs' elemental attribution would have been directly derived from the seasons. As far as the classic domiciles are concerned, these reflect the order of the planets in the Solar system (Sun in Leo, Mercury in Virgo etc.). Indeed star catalogues in ancient Greece started with Leo and not with Aries (Franz Boll: Aus der Offenbarung Johannis).

Deb wrote:

One justification (I am not saying it is right or wrong) is that most of the landmass is in the northern hemisphere; so the earth - as an entirety - "greens" in the northern hemisphere summer.

Note that the unequal distribution of land and water can be seen reflected in the northern half of the zodiac (relative to the celestial equator) containing two earth signs, the southern half containing two water signs. In contrast (the Yin in the Yang, and vice versa), the one water sign in the northern half - Cancer, the most northern sign - is symbolic of earth's north-pole which has no land mass, whereas the one earth sign in the southern half - Capricorn, opposite to Cancer - represents the south-pole which is a continent. Thus western astrology's zodiac is really analogous to the entire earth. I like to envision it as the space surrounding the earth (or the plane of earth's orbit projected into infinity).

In practical terms, Mark's sample charts leave me without a doubt that the Zodiac doesn't need to be modified for south hemisphere nativities.

Also, South American astrologers are generally quite happy with using the zodiac as given.

Michael Sternbach wrote: In practical terms, Mark's sample charts leave me without a doubt that the Zodiac doesn't need to be modified for south hemisphere nativities.

Also, South American astrologers are generally quite happy with using the zodiac as given.

In view of this and the rest of your post I am now reluctant to test my previous idea about reversing the seasons of the signs and their rulers and assessing temperament to any great extent but I did take a look at The Pope, Oscar Pistorius and the actress who plays Xena Warrior Princess and simply checking the ascendant sign, the moons sign and its ruler they seem right using the usual scheme. For instance Pistorius is surely a choleric and he has Asc ruler in a hot and dry Sag and Moon in Leo. The moons ruler is only arc minutes from entering Sag as well

Matthew

Mark wrote:

However, it is very hard to deny that seasonal and sidereal considerations were not seen as rigidly separate in ancient astrology. Going back to Babylonian astrology for example we know the beginning of their zodiac originally started with the Pleiades in sidereal Taurus and only later shifted to sidereal Aries.

Strictly speaking the zodiac as such didn't begin with the Pleiades since the 12 equal sign zodiac arrived fairly late in Babylonian astrology. But I don't want to distract from the central theme of this thread, so won't elaborate further.

Similarly, the starting point of the Indian nakshatras or lunar mansions seems to have shifted more than once.

This is true as well, but this was before the introduction of a 12 sign zodiac into India's astrology. (Again, a debate point among traditionally based historians of India's astrological history such as David Frawley.)

Both these shifts in sidereal order seem to be a reflection of the ancients desire to align their asterisms to seasonal changes.

India still considers the solstice and equinox points important times to schedule festivals. They are just not aligned with signs of the zodiac. I agree that those points are key divisions of the annual path of the earth around the Sun and should be noted in astrological charts. The question is whether the solstice and equinox points necessarily mark signs of the zodiac or are simply key annual cyclic points. This would make an interesting discussion on the sidereal forum.

Ancient cultures were dependent on seasonal cycles for their very survival so they clearly would have utilized the stars as seasonal markers.

This is true, but those stars weren't necessarily aligned with signs of the zodiac.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
There isn't really much debate left on the ayanamsa either.

Mark replied:
Perhaps not on Skyscript. We hardly have a thriving community of siderealists here or in the west in general. But if you look at the wider world of sidereal astrology today this issue does seem to generate incessant heated discussion on the Indian astrology forums I have looked at. Its comparable to the diversity of opinion on house systems amongst tropical astrologers.

I haven't participated on those forums, so there may be more debate than I realized. However, if it comes down to numbers, the Lahiri zodiac has been adopted by the majority of astrologers in both east and west. Or at least the majority of sidereal spokesmen who conduct classes and seminars and write books. (Again, this might be a topic for the sidereal forum.)

Therese Hamilton wrote:
But the interpretation of sidereal signs is a hotly debated topic. At present there are no standard interpretations.

Mark replied:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7706

There certainly seems to be a big difference between siderealists like say Ken Bowser and yourself on[sign interpretation]. I know you have been putting a lot of effort into getting more discussion of this issue going amongst western siderealists. However, if we consider India in your comment I don't detect this issue as remotely as popular for siderealists as discussions on the various ayanamsa.

Yes, since traditionally India has placed very little emphasis on zodiac signs except as sign depositors of planets and the ascendant, sign interpretation tends to be a "non-topic" in India. We don't know what percentage of astrologers may be represented by discussion on the forums. Are there only a few very strident voices supporting a particular ayanamsa? I don't know the answer to that question.

As you pointed out in the link above, the ayanamsa question has been discussed on the sidereal forum.

I've kept my replies brief as I don't want to distract from the central theme on this thread. There is only one basic zodiac question: If there is a "true" zodiac, is it aligned with the seasons or with some unknown point or star in the sky? Is the zodiac sky based (sidereal) or earth based (seasonal)?

The truth is that now we have the software and data tools to dig fairly deeply into that question. I've made some small beginnings into this question on the sidereal forum. We no longer need to speculate as we have many thousands of birth charts that can be examined.

The primary tropical zodiac knot is the southern hemisphere (a fairly big question!). The sidereal knot is the question of ayanamsa or the precise starting point of the zodiac (another big question).

Therese (sideral zoidac spokesperson!)

Hello Therese,

Thanks for your response. While I would have liked to have debated some of your comments I dont want to distract this thread any further from its original focus which relates to The Tropical Zodiac and the Southern Hemisphere. So on this occasion I think its wiser to leave you with the last word.

Mark

Mark wrote:

Logically, I think there is a reasonable argument for reversing the signs but for some reason I cannot really explain the existing tropical zodiac seems to work with southern hemisphere charts.

I see the explanation as transparently simple, an explanation that can be answered with a key question.

As a long time astrologer and one who trained (London's Faculty of Astrological Studies) and worked in the tropical zodiac for ten years before changing to the sidereal, I can say that my observations indicate that the tropical signs don't change their natures even a tiny bit for southern hemisphere births or for southern hemisphere seasons. Aries is always Aries, Taurus always Taurus, and so forth.

The big question then becomes: Just how valid are the seasonal attributes of the tropical signs? Do they really exist? Are signs really "hot and dry," "cold and wet" and so forth? Are the traits of Aries, for example, due to the season of spring or to something else entirely?

Are there other explanations for observed sign traits that in the northern hemisphere appear to be seasonal? This is a question I grappled with before moving to what I call "the zodiac of the stars." (But I don't think that this thread is the place for any further discussion of the sideral zodiac.)

This is not to say that seasonal variations don't exist in relation to temperament, moods and so forth, but these WILL be different in the southern hemisphere, though not connected to zodiac signs as such. They'll be connected to the actual weather and seasonal changes.

So how do we determine which traits really belong to signs? Surely that is not so difficult with the many thousands of people we now have birth data for along with biographical notes? But a discussion of theory won't get us very far. We have to do the nitty gritty work of studying many many birth charts with their biographical data. Talk is easy. Research is not.

(Editing note: Mark, I see that our posts crossed. I agree totally that this thread should stay on track with the southern hemispere question, which is why I posed the question above relating to the source of seasonal attributes in the tropical zodiac. I have no desire to futher discuss the sidereal zodiac in this thread. I wrote my previous post so that it didn't need a reply.)

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Are signs really "hot and dry," "cold and wet" and so forth? Are the traits of Aries, for example, due to the season of spring or to something else entirely?

Going back to Ptolemy on this its interesting that his approach was basically to assign the quality of a sign based on the domicile planetary ruler not the season. So both Aries and Scorpio were described by him as dry which is the main characteristic of Mars. The idea that Aries is hot + dry comes from Perso-Arabic astrology not Ptolemy. I had been planning to open a thread on Ptolemy's own system of sign qualities on the traditional forum anyway but this issue has really brought it to the fore.

Mark

Mark, we're apparently on live chat! You wrote:

The idea that Aries is hot + dry comes from Perso-Arabic astrology not Ptolemy. I had been planning to open a thread on Ptolemy own system of sign qualities on the traditional forum anyway but this issue has really brought it to the fore.

Recently I've really been questioning the physical element assignments (hot and dry, etc.) to signs of the zodiac. I don't question the observed energy of the tropical signs related to what are called the four "elements" in relation to the four trigons. Those tend to be related to the expression of the personality and have nothing to do with the physical elements.

Yes, the ancient astrologers assigned many traits to the signs based on the association of planetary lords.

The problem with the traditional forum is that we cannot mention anything connected to the sidereal zodiac as per moderator policy.

Therese wrote:

Recently I've really been questioning the physical element assignments (hot and dry, etc.) to signs of the zodiac.

Me too! But from a tropical rather than a sidereal perspective. I really like the idea of sign qualities linking into planetary rulers. Hence I am wondering whether Perso-Arabic astrology rather went down the wrong track on this.

The triplicities are very ancient in astrology but they originally related to the four winds not the four elements. Following the Babylonian tradition Ptolemy makes no reference to the four elements in reference to the four trigons. Instead he relates the trigons to the four winds. The trigons were always central to astrological directionology.

I am intrigued by your distinction between the more psychological nature of the elements in the trigons and the more physical qualities of the signs. I think you have an interesting point in distinguishing between the two.

Mark

Mark wrote:

Therese wrote:
Recently I've really been questioning the physical element assignments (hot and dry, etc.) to signs of the zodiac.

Mark replied:
Me too! But from a tropical rather than a sidereal perspective. I really like the idea of sign qualities linking into planetary rulers. Hence I feel Perso-Arabic astrology rather went down the wrong track on this.

I was thinking this from either a tropical or sidereal perspective. I agree that Perso-Arabic astrology went down the wrong track on the physical element assignment to the signs. And this assignment has been perpetuated during the modern classical revival.

The triplicities are very ancient in astrology but they originally related to the four winds not the four elements. Following the Babylonian tradition Ptolemy makes no reference to the four elements in reference to the four trigons. Instead he relates the trigons to the four winds. The trigons were always central to astrological directionology.

Yes, the four winds were the original assignments to the trigons. But as we are discovering in modern times, the trigons have additional much greater importance just as Dorotheus emphasized.

I am intrigued by your distinction between the more psychological nature of the elements in the trigons and the more physical qualities of the signs. I can think you might have a good point in distinguishing between the two.

I do think there is a real distinction there, and it might make an interesting discussion.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Yes, the four winds were the original assignments to the trigons. But as we are discovering in modern times, the trigons have additional much greater importance just as Dorotheus emphasized.

Not sure what exactly you mean here. You are referring to the planetary ruler of each trigon? Interestingly, this idea seems to derive from Babylonian astrology too. However, the notion of night and day rulers seems a purely Greek development.

Mark