Skyscript Astrology Forum

Map wrote:

Tropical Pisces Ascendant - congenial for a philosophical outlook -
having the touch of 9th lord indicating higher learning, religion, Dharma, truth, straight forwardness

But Sister Jacinta's chart is sidereal. In the tropical zodiac her Ascendant and Sun are in Aries.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

But Sister Jacinta's chart is sidereal. In the tropical zodiac her Ascendant and Sun are in Aries.

Yes. In tropical it shows the ascendant at 00:24. It is on the border. An error of about 1.5 minutes in the TOB will change the ascendant and this error is quite possible. The ascendant is extremely sensitive and one should be careful before accepting such border cases.

I am sure that the ascendant is pisces. It is 100% not possible to be what she is without 9th touch and jupiter aspect.

regards
map

Map wrote:

Yes. In tropical it shows the ascendant at 00:24. It is on the border. The ascendant is extremely sensitive and one should be careful before accepting such border cases.

But there's no way that 17 degrees in the sidereal zodiac converts to Pisces in the tropical zodiac. The difference between the Krishnamurti and tropical zodiacs in 1945, Sister Jacinta's birth year, is 7 degrees. Subtracting 7 from 17 gives a tropical ascendant of 10 degrees of Aries. (I am rounding off Jacinta's ascendant from 16? 53' to 17?.)

I am sure that the ascendant is pisces. It is 100% not possible to be what she is without 9th touch and jupiter aspect.

In the sidereal chart Jupiter is on the Sagittarius navamsa ascendant, and the stellium of navamsa Scorpio planets goes to the natal 9th house. Also in the sidereal chart the Sun is in mutual reception with Jupiter in Leo, a very powerful connection. The navamsa Moon is on the exact degree of the (equal) natal 9th house cusp.

I don't believe that it's possible to correctly read a birth chart without a correct navamsa chart. This is why I use the Krishnamurti ayanamsa after many years of research.

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.)

Rodney King's chart (posted on this thread) has Venus, Sun, Moon and Mercury in Reveti. Jupiter, the dispositor of these planets is in Krittika, without close aspect, and two degrees from the sandhi between the first and second house (weak placement). But navamsa Jupiter tells more of a story as it is debilitated in Capricorn with Ketu in the 6th house. So this suggests that for the best traits of a lunar mansion to manifest, the sign dispositor should be well placed. In Rodney King's chart Jupiter also disposits the mansion lord, Mercury.

There was a mistake in giving the ascendant degree by me. I am using 0800 website for getting tropical chart. I am giving here the tropical ascendant as got from that site: it is 16deg12 min Pisces.

Kindly check that site and tell me if i am not correct.

And regarding the navamsa chart, d1 should broadly indicate a person's life and it should be fine tuned using navamsa chart. Approx 75 % of the native's life must be present in d1.

regards
map

Map wrote:

There was a mistake in giving the ascendant degree by me. I am using 0800 website for getting tropical chart. I am giving here the tropical ascendant as got from that site: it is 16deg12 min Pisces.

Kindly check that site and tell me if i am not correct

Map, you didn't give a URL for the site. But I know the sidereal chart is correct, as different programs give the same ascendant degree. The tropical ascedant is in Aries. There may be some disagreement about standard time or war time, since the birth was in Pennsylvania. That may be why you are getting an incorrect ascendant.

Thank you.

Website URL: http://www.0800-horoscope.com/

Since i believe that d1 is extremely important and next only the other d charts as these are derived from d1, i still feel the ascendant has to be pisces (with or without correction).

In the site of lightonvedicastrology.com of vaughan paul one of the members who works in hospitals) wrote that there is generally a wide variation in recording the TOBs.

I am only confident of the ascendant (keeping the native's life in view) and not the degree. Other d charts can be used later.

regards
map

Map wrote:

Since i believe that d1 is extremely important and next only the other d charts as these are derived from d1, i still feel the ascendant has to be pisces (with or without correction).

In the site of lightonvedicastrology.com of vaughan paul one of the members who works in hospitals) wrote that there is generally a wide variation in recording the TOBs.

The ascendant IS Pisces if you would be willing to consider the sidereal chart as valid. There is no reason the birth time of 6:13 a.m. wouldn't be valid. We can't make excuses for a birth time because the chart doesn't fit our belief as to what it should be, at least not when the chart fits like a glove in the sidereal zodiac.

Thank you and no problem.

regards
map

Rather than reply on the other thread, I thought I'd reply here with my feelings about this kind of approach.
Original thread here:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=75

I'm quoting Stefan's post, Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:11 am.

Stefan wrote:Search for Sidereal Aries sun, Moon and Ascendant.

...

Ok that's all I have done so far. Maybe a thread later with more room for discussion about specific charts. Not so much research. More a fun astrological investigation. Thanks to David Cochrane.


S

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 - namely if it walks like an Aries and talks like an Aries, it must be a sidereal Aries and not a tropical Taurus etc.

Quite apart from the fact that that isn't really the focus of this discussion, and that typically these kinds of arguments seldom lead to much good, I don't find these kinds of things compelling. I remember Therese doing similar things and in most of those charts, for example, Mars was angular etc:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8258

And too often when we look at these charts we find similar things. For example I'd have doubts over the ascendant of Joseph Gallieni - how many people do we know born exactly on the hour? With a just a few minutes difference, these signs of quick ascension can change pretty quickly, and it could well be this man was a tropical Aries rising as well. To quote another poster:
"The ascendant is extremely sensitive and one should be careful before accepting such border cases. "

And in fact it wouldn't take us long to find a similar character with, say, Sun, Moon, Ascendant in Cancer or something, let alone Aries or Taurus.

I think if we're trying to make these claims the only way to do it is to define some category which is crystal clear - such as achieving a high rank in the military - and performing a statistical analysis of at least a couple of hundred nativities of military personnel and see what statistical hits we have for those in the highest ranks, and compare against a similar sample but with a mix of professions to see if we still get these hits for military careers etc.

Until we do something like that, all we're really doing is picking a choosing a nativity which just so happens to conform with our thesis and isolating this nativity and implying it is a typical example when it may or may not be.

Whilst these things can be interesting, my view is that they need to be taken with a pinch of salt really.

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.

Then a posted link about David Chochrane's (very intelligent astrologer) ideas came up in the thread. Which suggested to do a search for people with much emphasis on certain signs would be a more
valid aproach then posing singular charts and making claims.

So this is maybe a baby step in the correct direction.

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.

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.


I recently looked for fun at two of the greatest stars in martial arts fighting.
Ronda Roussey and Alexander Gustafsson. I found it interesting that both had tropical mars with node in tropical aries. (sidereal pisces). They were born rather near in time. These things are fun to look at. But does it "prove anything" No.