Paul wrote:

Right but you're contradicting your own (or perhaps Fagan's) logic here. On the one hand you're saying there is no real tropical zodiac, merely a sidereal zodiac and the tropical astrologers alter their meanings accordingly. But on the other hand you're actually doing the same for the sidereal signs - rewriting them to match the tropical signs.

Paul, first let's keep my quotes separate from others. As I remember, Cyril Fagan believed there was only one valid zodiac for astrology, the sidereal. I didn't personally say there was no real tropical zodiac.

Let me try again. Picture a zodiac against the constellations along the ecliptic. That zodiac never changes. It's always in the same place. Let's say that Spica defines the point between Virgo and Libra, and the point in exact opposition is Zero Aries.

Now this zodiac path is divided into equal 30 degree segments. Each segment has a specific energy. Each segment is ruled by a specific planet. This never changes. The zodiac (sidereal) is forever fixed except for very small movement over long periods of time due to the proper motion of the stars.

The measurement of the tropical signs starts to shift over centuries with the spring equinox. From Fagan's point of view, there are no tropical signs. There is only the shifting equinox against the fixed sidereal signs. There is only tropical measurement. Any perceived meaning of tropical signs is simply coming from the sidereal divisions of the zodiac.

These sign characteristics have simply not been perceived to belong to the sidereal signs. So "borrowing" from the tropical signs isn't borrowing at all. It's simply placing the sign characteristics in the proper zodiac where they have always been. These sign characteristics never moved, but can certainly be overlaid with additional attributes over time due to cultural developments.

This WAS the early western sidereal understanding of the signs. There are so very few western sidereal astrologers left that the perceptions of signs tends to be strictly individual.

I tend to believe that certain sign characteristics have always been there, "fixed" in certain ares of the ecliptic. There is an article on my web site, "What is a Sign of the Zodiac?" That article would best describe my approach to the zodiac question. I would agree with Fagan that sign characteristics for which we have evidence have always belonged to signs in the sidereal zoidac. The are not "borrowed" from tropical signs. They have simply been observed in tropical sign divisions.

Martin wrote:

Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India).

This is an important difference between western tropical astrology and India's astrology. The planetary falls are similar, but there are no detriments. That is, the sign opposite a planet's domicile isn't considered a debility for the planet. Here is the reasoning as I understand it: If there is a planet in another planet's domicile (say Venus in Aries), and Mars opposes Venus from Libra, that can actually be a strength because Mars is being received in its own domicile by a planet positioned there. Likewise, Mars is receiving Venus in her domicile.

Nixx wrote:

Eshelman has his forum which may provide some useful information as regards your unique views, as you describe them, on planetary and sign meanings.

http://solunars.net/viewforum.php?f=2&s ... e74881e908

Here you go, Paul!! There's enough on this site to keep you busy for a year. Thanks for finding this web site, Nixx. I remembered that James Eshelman had a web site, but couldn't remember the title. Yes, this would be the most recent and up-to-date take on the western sidereal system, and there are many discussions on the site.

Note: I personally am not a western sidereal astrologer. I practice Jyotish with a few twists, and the views on signs on my web site are strictly my own.

I don't know how much agreement Ken Bowser would have with Jim Eshleman.

Martin Gansten wrote: Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India). Also, any planet in the ascendant will have a major influence and may trump Venus.

Of course, the whole chart needs taking into consideration, this wasn't meant as a trick question in the style of "aha that doesn't fit me therefore sidereal signs suck!" or anything like that. More just about making sure that I should be able to interpret my chart using the same methods I might interpret it from a traditional tropical perspective, but just precess my signs.

Also I was under the impression, if we go back to our traditional sources, that detriment was one of the most essentially debilitating a planet could be. In my own chart Venus is also cadent from the descendant by about 8 degrees, but there's about 5-10 mins leeway on my birthtime and I've always considered it angular.

It's interesting cos it pushes my well dignified Venus in Taurus into an ill dignified Venus in Aries.

What's useful to take away from this is, if I go by what you're saying, I should be able to interpret my own chart (or others) using the methods I'm familiar with with just precessed signs - so not have to 'relearn' what the signs mean.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Paul, this is as close as you'll come to an interpretation of western sidereal signs. As I said, there's no general agreement because there are too few practitioners of the western system. James A. Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer: http://www.amazon.com/new-instant-astro ... 0893220140

Thanks. I wonder how much his astrology has been shaped and influenced by Thelema though.
Also I note that he too says "The Tropical zodiac is a fiction. It simply doesn?t exist, except in the minds of its proponents."

Therese Hamilton wrote: This is an important difference between western tropical astrology and India's astrology. The planetary falls are similar, but there are no detriments. That is, the sign opposite a planet's domicile isn't considered a debility for the planet. Here is the reasoning as I understand it: If there is a planet in another planet's domicile (say Venus in Aries), and Mars opposes Venus from Libra, that can actually be a strength because Mars is being received in its own domicile by a planet positioned there. Likewise, Mars is receiving Venus in her domicile.

Right but you're describing mutual reception here which is a boon in western tropical astrology as well. Obviously if a planet is received that's a good thing, and if mutually received even better.
But do the Indian astrology take Mars in Libra, without reception for example, as being a debility like we do in western tropical astrology?

Let me try again. Picture a zodiac against the constellations along the ecliptic. That zodiac never changes. It's always in the same place. Let's say that Spica defines the point between Virgo and Libra, and the point in exact opposition is Zero Aries.

Neither zodiac changes. The tropical zodiac also neither changes. This is somewhat meaningless when you think of it. What you're saying is that it will not change in relation to itself. The same is true for tropical astrology. In relation to itself, the tropical zodiac also will not change. The only thing that changes is the relationship between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. As for which one is 'changing' that depends on the observer. If you're observing from a fixed star, then it is the equinoxes which change. If you are observing from the earth, then it is the sidereal backdrop which changes. But neither change in relation to themselves, they only change in relation to something else. So when you say "The measurement of the tropical signs starts to shift over centuries with the spring equinox. " what you mean is that the tropical signs shift in relation to the sidereal zodiac. Another way of putting this would be to say that the sidereal signs shift in relation to the tropical zodiac.

These sign characteristics have simply not been perceived to belong to the sidereal signs. So "borrowing" from the tropical signs isn't borrowing at all. It's simply placing the sign characteristics in the proper zodiac where they have always been.

But the huge problem with this logic is that it's actually not 'always been' that way. In other words we never have Taurus described as articulate and excitable and animated talkativeness like you describe on your website. If it's "always been" that way then we can look back to the hellenistic authors and read about Taurus and see that that's how it's described. But when we do we do not see that, instead, as I quoted, we actually see Taurus described as mute instead! Therefore it would seem the idea that it's not borrowing from the tropical seems intellectually dishonest. It absolutely is borrowing from the tropical signs because at the time when the signs were aligned we do not see those attributions associated with Taurus. This is why I wanted to examine the issue with reference to the hellensitic astrologers as they're writing in a time when the zodiacs were aligned, so we can see any changes by simply comparing against them.

This WAS the early western sidereal understanding of the signs.

What do you mean be early? Do you mean from Fagan's era onwards? Or do you mean the hellenistic astrologers?

I would agree with Fagan that sign characteristics for which we have evidence have always belonged to signs in the sidereal zoidac. The are not "borrowed" from tropical signs. They have simply been observed in tropical sign divisions.

Right, so as I had said earlier, you believe that the only 'true' zodiac is the sidereal one, and that the tropical zodiac is simply mislaid and is secretly the sidereal zodiac often to the ignorance of tropical astrologers. That's what this viewpoint actually means. You're saying that the characteristics belong to the sidereal zodiac and tropical astrologers simply noted them and didn't realise they were sidereal in origin. That means the tropical zodiac is incorrect and is actually sidereal.

Therese Hamilton wrote:So we might speculate or assume there is evidence that a portion of Indian thought has made its way into later Medieval astrology via the Arabic texts.

Oh, it definitely has -- but not necessarily in a way that is strictly relevant to the topic of this thread.

Paul wrote:Also I was under the impression, if we go back to our traditional sources, that detriment was one of the most essentially debilitating a planet could be.

I'm a little pressed for time just now, but as I recall there is only slight evidence in the Greek material of what we now call detriment being considered a debility. It is wholly absent from pre-Islamic Sanskrit sources, and also from several medieval Arabic sources. I believe Ben Dykes has a short discussion of this in his preface to Works of Sahl and Masha'allah. The signs (and degrees) of fall, on the other hand, are prominent throughout.

What's useful to take away from this is, if I go by what you're saying, I should be able to interpret my own chart (or others) using the methods I'm familiar with with just precessed signs - so not have to 'relearn' what the signs mean.

Yes. That's what I do.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Paul, I don't believe we can discuss the sidereal zodiac to any extent without including India's astrology. Here in the United States there seems to be complete harmony between tropical and Jyotish astrologers. Many western astrologers who have learned Jyotish routinely combine the two in order to communicate more effectively with clients.

There is no discussion of seasonal differences in philosophy or tropical vs. sidereal conflict. No one cares! The medieval Renaissance of astrology seems to have taken root mainly in Europe, though Benjamin Dykes makes his home in the United States. Personally I had never given thought to the concept of the tropical zodiac being based on seasonal philosophy. I've simply studied the signs as they operate in the horoscopes of individuals.

Do you have any names to throw in here Therese. I take the view like Martin here and Bowser, and a far as I can see pretty much everyone else, that you can't combine Zodiacs coherently and you are faced with a personal choice.

I find it a little odd that you haven't given any thought to seasonal associations. Leo for example, is widely described as warm and generous. Did it not occur to you that one reason for this could be the Sun being warm and generous in August in the Hellensitic world? There may be sidereal perspectives here, you would have thought so, but nevertheless it's a curio for someone who seems to have been interested in Horoscopy for some time to have not bumped into something so fundamental to these types of discussions ?

Therese

You've suggested using your website as a source of sidereal information, but I find it outright baffling at times.

For example:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/APlanets.htm

You say that "there is little guess work involved in choosing the probable zodiacal rulers of Taurus and Gemini, the two signs still without their primary domicile lords"

What does this mean? Surely Venus and Mercury respectively rule those signs. Is this a sidereal statement as you understand it? What's equally troubling is that in an earlier paragraph you said "If you wanted to know about Virgo, you studied Mercury in the horoscope." so if you wanted to know about Taurus or Gemini, what do you study if it has no ruler?

All the above is given in a context where you accept that "Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn have had their homes in the zodiac since Hellenistic times", but of course in the same said hellenistic times Mercury was domicile (at home) in Gemini and Venus in Taurus.

"Unlike the system of planetary lords, at first glance the relationship of exalted planets to signs does not seem to follow any astrological pattern."

Actually there is a pattern. All the diurnal planets are configured to their exalted signs by a trine from their domicile signs, and all the nocturnal ones by a sextile. With the exception of Mercury which is neither diurnal/nocturnal nor masculine or feminine, but instead gains exaltation in the sign that is oriental of the sun where it takes upon masculine gender.

"Astrologers have been consistent in assigning Uranus to Aquarius and Neptune to Pisces, but have broken the pattern with Pluto, assigning it to Scorpio rather than to Aries. This assignment is partly due to the observed nature of Tropical Scorpio"

Actually I believe that a German astrologer simply stated and published that it was the domicile ruler of Scorpio and its popularity is what made it so. I think actually a group of astrologers gathered together to assign it to Aries but this guy beat them to it.

"Taurus and Gemini don't have their own domicile lords as yet, but their lords would be exalted in Aquarius and Leo respectively. These two signs had no exalted planets in the ancient system."

But neither did Sagittarius or Scorpio, so why Aquarius or Leo?

"It's intriguing that this ancient Zoroastrian text assigns the remote Artemis to Aquarius, Neptune to Pisces, with which all modern astrologers agree, and Pluto to Aries, the suggested sidereal co-lord of Aries"

I struggle to comprehend any zoroastrian text saying that "Sagittarius: Hera [the faithful wife] with Zeus " as these gods are all greek.

Do you have the original translation without your comments anywhere?

Nixx wrote:Do you have any names to throw in here Therese. I take the view like Martin here and Bowser, and a far as I can see pretty much everyone else, that you can't combine Zodiacs coherently and you are faced with a personal choice.

Hi Nixx. You posed this question to Therese, but if I may interject - I was just reading an old post on the ACT forum in which the late Robert Blaschke described how he combines tropical and sidereal zodiacs. Here's the quote:

I am primarily a Tropical astrologer, but I also use Western Sidereal astrology in relationship analysis. I have developed a "Cross-Zodiac" synastry technique wherein the tropical nativity of one individual is compared to the sidereal nativity of the second person. I have found that the completion of karma between two souls can be perceived using this method (when the Tropical planet of one conjoins the Sidereal angle of the other, or vice versa).

Blaschke was an innovator and had a very idiosyncratic approach to delineation. He published an article on his website describing his tropical-sidereal approach in detail, but following his death the site was suspended and I've not been able to find the article elsewhere.

Astraea wrote: I am primarily a Tropical astrologer, but I also use Western Sidereal astrology in relationship analysis. I have developed a "Cross-Zodiac" synastry technique wherein the tropical nativity of one individual is compared to the sidereal nativity of the second person. I have found that the completion of karma between two souls can be perceived using this method (when the Tropical planet of one conjoins the Sidereal angle of the other, or vice versa).

Blaschke was an innovator and had a very idiosyncratic approach to delineation. He published an article on his website describing his tropical-sidereal approach in detail, but following his death the site was suspended and I've not been able to find the article elsewhere.

I recall reading an article by him about how different zodiacs described, as he saw it, different levels of 'consciousness' or something like this. Perhaps karmic realities describes it better?

I don't recall finding a way of relating to his ideas in this respect. I doubt Sidereal astrologers would have been all that smitten as Blaschke appeared to side with the Tropical Schema as the one that talked about our more worldly psychological existence.

I recall he had some odd ideas about life, including appearing to perceive chronic illness as some kind of self generated soul sickness, an imporobable notion which one wonders if he re - evaluated in the light of his own ?, but found his writing pretty clear and easy to follow. Here?s an example of the latter, http://www.lunatica.pwp.blueyonder.co.u ... rticle.pdf

Paul wrote:

Thanks. I wonder how much his [James Eshelman's] astrology has been shaped and influenced by Thelema though.

Jim had published his books before his involvement with Thelema, and I note on his current web site that he's quoting from his books.

Also I note that he too says "The Tropical zodiac is a fiction. It simply doesn?t exist, except in the minds of its proponents."

Then he is staying with what I recall was Fagan's view. Here is probably the main reason that Fagan's western sidereal system caught on with so few astrologers. Astrologers don't want to be told that the zodiac they're using is a fiction. That's a pretty strong statement.

But do the Indian astrology take Mars in Libra, without reception for example, as being a debility like we do in western tropical astrology?

No, Mars in Libra isn't considered to be a debility.

This is why I wanted to examine the issue with reference to the hellensitic astrologers as they're writing in a time when the zodiacs were aligned, so we can see any changes by simply comparing against them.

Rupert Gleadow in Your Character in the Zodiac has made a good beginning in investigating the Hellenistic texts. But to be thorough, this is a big job that should be a group effort. This effort could take up several university level courses!

Therese: This WAS the early western sidereal understanding of the signs.

What do you mean be early? Do you mean from Fagan's era onwards? Or do you mean the hellenistic astrologers?

From Fagan's era onwards.

You're saying that the characteristics belong to the sidereal zodiac and tropical astrologers simply noted them and didn't realise they were sidereal in origin. That means the tropical zodiac is incorrect and is actually sidereal.

That may be my primary perspective at this time, but I don't make statements like that without providing a lot of evidence. Also the zodiac is made up of various harmonics, and as yet we haven't isolated the initial point of the harmonics.