Skyscript Astrology Forum

Paul wrote:

varuna2 wrote: The truth is that I do not attack Tropical astrology other than to turn the arguments against Sidereal back onto those who make them.

Actually Varuna2 the truth is that you turn them on anyone - regardless of whether they make them or not. For example, nobody made them in this forum, in fact you look for reasons to introduce the tropical-sidereal debate.

The question being discussed here is where is the correct place to use sidereal astrology - is it here or some other forum. Tom raised the point that it is not here.

Clearly sidereal astrology is traditional, but then so is omen based astrology. At some point there needs to be some distinction. What I'm sure nobody wants is a division of more and more forums where we have "Modern Western Sidereal" "Traditional Western Sidereal" "Vedic Sidereal" "Tropical Western Traditional" and so on

At some point there will no doubt be overlap. But nobody at all is discussing here any issues regarding the zodiac, even if you wish to raise them whenever you believe you can. I would suggest that any further discussion of the 'debate' of the zodiacs should be removed. If you wish to argue the debates of the zodiac perhaps a new thread should be started so you can do that.

Paul,

Please take off your clouded glasses and reread Mark's post about the Sidereal ayanamshas. I returned Mark's words instead writing about the Tropical viewpoint. Then Mark said my statements are "risible" meaning worthy of laughter and ridicule, and yet I did exactly what Mark did, and somehow Mark's statements were not risible also? You and Mark both cannot see what it looks like from another point of view.

I realize you are upset because I turn them onto you, but what happens is you gain knowledge from Martin and others here, and then you go to astro.com forum and write things casting aspersions on the Sidereal perspective. You have done this for over a year now. The latest debate over there is the first time I have seen you not do this, and it is only because I showed you in the recent thread in the sidereal section that those 3 main arguments against the Sidereal can be twisted around.

I do not wish to debate the zodiacs here. I am giving tit for tat. If my posts are removed then Mark's post needs to be removed also.

Tom certainly did raise the point. If his decision is final, then Martin likely will leave and I hope many other people leave also. I know the only reason I have returned to this forum is because Martin is here.

varuna2 wrote:Please take off your clouded glasses and reread Mark's post about the Sidereal ayanamshas. I returned Mark's words instead writing about the Tropical viewpoint.

No Varnua, Mark pointed out that there are a number of common ayanamshas, some Indian derived which are not 'western traditional', nothing he said warranted polemics like this: "On the one hand, Westerners always try to credit everything under the Sun to Mesopotamians and Greeks (due to prejudice and bias of the historical basis of their modern thinking: Judeo-Christianity and Hellenist philosophy)," - emphasis mine. It's this stuff I'm saying should be avoided, whether made by you, Mark or anyone else - unless we want to turn this into a Sidereal Vs Tropical debate. Obviously you appear to, but not everyone does.

You and Mark both cannot see what it looks like from another point of view.

Varnua I'm getting bored of having other discussions turned into debates on the zodiac, I do not mind having those debates but I do mind that you attempt to turn the last several threads you've posted on into that debate when they are not. Also please do not tell me what I can and cannot see, it may seem that way to you, but does not make it true.

I realize you are upset because I turn them onto you, but what happens is you gain knowledge from Martin and others here, and then you go to astro.com forum and write things casting aspersions on the Sidereal perspective. You have done this for over a year now.

I use the forums as I see fit. Astro.com is worth using to play devil's advocate where I can learn more. I do not recall ever using "knowledge gained from Martin" to do that. Instead I often defend many lazy and recurring attacks upon tropical astrology. If you bothered to read this with any care or attention you will see that I normally result with ideas that both zodiacs have validity to them as used by their practioners and such lazy arguments seldom add anything new. But once again you're attempting to turn this into a sidereal tropical debate.

The latest debate over there is the first time I have seen you not do this

I won't hold myself accountable for hte fact that you've not read enough of my posts there Varuna nor do I see the relevance of what I post on astro.com here - nor do I think that you are someone I should explain myself to. Just take it as read that I use that forum for my own purposes, often to play devil's advocate with ideas to explore more about what philosophies people hold, and more importantly why. I don't expect or care whether you accept that.

I do not wish to debate the zodiacs here.

Then stop doing it. And whilst you're at it, stop making it personal. If you keep making personal criticisms, I will remove those posts. Stick to the topic: note that it is not my usage of the astro.com forum.

Tom certainly did raise the point. If his decision is final, then Martin likely will leave and I hope many other people leave also. I know the only reason I have returned to this forum is because Martin is here.

Let Martin decide what Martin will do, and Tom decide what he will do.

Mark wrote: the Persians do seem to have had a quite separate sidereal zodiac of their own (completely different from what James Holden has called the 'Alexandrian zodiac of Valens etc).

Raymond Mercier's article "Studies in the medieval concept of precession" suggests the Toledan Tables (11th Century) were based on the sidereal year, unlike the tables of Ptolemy. The use of the sidereal year had its antecedents in the Kwarizmian tables (9th Century) and the Babylonian methods of the Indian astrological/astronomical tradition.



[The Babylonians borrowed a Sanskrit word for month, and yet somehow it is always these people from Mesopotamia who originated everything, this is why I gave a response suggesting bias]



Mercier indicates the Persian or Sassanian zodiac seems to have an ayanamsa placing it in the the mid 6th century. He came up with a convergence with the tropical zodiac at A.D. 563/564.

One difficulty I think we have to face up to is that there isn't one sidereal zodiac.



[This is why I responded with showing more than one Tropical zodiac.]



There are a variety of sidereal 'zodiacs' all calculated from different points according to the tropical zodiac.



[This is why I mentioned the Taittiriya Sanhita use of star positions thousands of years before this hindsight method of astrology by calculating the Tropical chart and then subtracting an ayanamsha, because that method is a modern method and did not exist thousands of years ago, for the Indians or for other peoples.]



So when we say sidereal do we mean the 'Alexandrian zodiac', the Persian 'Sassanian zodiac' or a yet another version originating independently from Indian astrology?

In reality, all the traditional siderealists here seem to be using a zodiac originating in Indian astrology. Whether, Krishnamurti, Lahiri etc they dont seem to derive from an astrological tradition originating with the Alexandrian zodiac or the separate Sassanian zodiac. At least that is my understanding. Perhaps you can clarify a siderealist traditional view on that? Are the differences between the Sassanian zodiac and Lahiri or Krisnamurti totally negligible?

My problem here isn't sidereal astrology. Its rather drawing a line on importing Indian astrological ideas into the traditional forum. We already have a forum for that and to allow Indian astrological techniques here would create a confusing smorgasbord.

Our focus here should be Hellenistic-Persian-Arab-Latin medieval and renaissance/early modern astrology. So while I fully accept your suggestion that non-tropical zodiacs have a valid basis in the Hellenistic-Persian-Arabic tradition I am not convinced that the current zodiacs being displayed as 'traditional sidereal' here do.

Mark



[This is why I wrote: "Aldebaran was an important marking star marking the Accadian asterism called Pidnu-sha-Shame. Jupiter is currently conjoined this star by longitude. This star and Jupiter are currently marking the exact center of the so-called Lahiri zodiac sign of Taurus.

This Aldebaran situation of falling exactly midpoint of Taurus, and the other star opposite of it, is also happening at the exact same time a star called Chitra is marking the near exact midpoint of a nakshatra called Chitra and also the beginning of the so-called Lahiri zodiac beginning point of Libra sign-constellation.

"...The full moon in Chitra, is the beginning of the year..." (Taittiriya Sanhita 7.4.Cool This is when the Moon is opposite the Sun, and the samvatsara (year) in this context is referring to the Winter Solstice. Therefore, this verse dates to at least 6000 b.c.e.

...The reality is that the same culture used more than one star at different times of the year. It would be impossible to practice ancient astrology otherwise, since the marking star would be gone many times of the night and/or year.]


[p.s. I did not make it personal until it was made personal to me: "Actually Varuna2 the truth is that you turn them on anyone"]

What Mark wrote, from my perspective, was a barrister tactic of suggesting the Sidereal zodiac one uses qualifies as a school of astrology.

Which is of course, absurd.

I think a major problem is that what people understand to be traditional has largely changed over the years that the site has been active, perhaps even in part because of it. There is much more information out there regarding the tradition of astrology - be it medieval, hellenistic or even babylonian - then perhaps was widespread when the site started.

I think Tom makes some valid points which are issues of pragmatism more than anything. Whereas before the different 'flavours' of the tradition where perhaps less startling or less obvious, increasingly they are becoming more and more specific, so that the traditional forum is an umbrella for a great variety of astrology. There is some irony perhaps in that promoting traditional astrology this forum is becoming in some places a victim of its own success, yet it is still (imo) the best active forum dedicated to astrology (particularly traditional obviously) on the internet.

I think there will always be a problem with chart interpretation with things like mystery charts as people will want to adopt their own methods. I personally see no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to get involved, what may have to happen though is that these mystery charts occur on the
"Nativities" forum - even if they are linked to or advertised on this forum, on the sidereal one, wherever. This means everyone can do what ever astrology they want and it is up to the poster to make clear what zodiac they're employing. This way everyone can share and the ethos of no particular forum is degraded by it - in fact there's an argument to be made that the nativities section is the better natural place for this.

However that does mean that traditional astrologers will have to interact with modern ones, and tropical with sidereal. I see no reason why this site shouldn't be an example of astrologers capable of working together and being accepting of astrological differences.

I strongly think that the 'future' of astrology lies with the incorporation of traditional techniques with some modern methods. I say this not to advocate it or promote that idea, but more because I think naturally that this is what will happen - history tends to support this view. Rather than encourage more and more division we might be better off recognising this whilst still recognising the autonomy of focus that is seen in the different forums.
That this forum chiefly promotes traditional methods, the sidereal one promotes sidereal methods, and maybe recognise that at times there's a clear cross over. Obviously the unspoken caveat surrounding this is that it be western traditional. Similarly there is overlap between the sidereal and the jyotish forum.

However certain distinctions can still be made - a particular traditional technique often exists regardless of zodiac, so the sidereal or tropical issue becomes merely a preference.

If we kept mystery charts to the nativities forum, then the focus of this one does not lose its core value, whilst still allowing everyone to join in. Failing that, any mystery chart here can exclude modern astrology, but perhaps can not legitimately exclude astrology whether practiced with a sidereal or tropical zodiac, considering the tradition has examples of both.

I think perhaps that Mark is right in that Deb should make that final decision, however I think we can also discuss it to work out some of the kinks before hand or some compromise that stays true to the essential ethos of each of the forums.