For anyone who is interested, I looked through 23 Horary charts over last night and this morning and I have noted when Tropical works much more clearly, when Lahiri, when both described it as clearly as the other (roughly) and when neither were really clear i.e. I have no clue how the chart shows the actual events:

Tropical: 4
Lahiri: 9
Both: 8
Neither: 2

Quite annoyingly, I found that Lahiri described more of the situations more accurately i.e. house positions of the significators, dignities, aspects, timing etc.

Of course this is nothing definitive but it is causing me to rethink the way I approach astrology.

To Martin or Therese: do you have any recommendations of some good traditional sidereal astrology books I could buy and find out more about it?

Konrad wrote:To Martin or Therese: do you have any recommendations of some good traditional sidereal astrology books I could buy and find out more about it?

Speaking for myself, I would say that I regard many traditional astrology texts as sidereal, or at least no less sidereal than tropical. We know that most Hellenistic astrologers seem not to have used Ptolemy's tropical zodiac; Persian astrology appears to have been all sidereal, and so is Indian astrology. Ptolemy found greater favour with later Arabic authors (and their Latin translators); but they simultaneously drew on non-Ptolemaic Hellenistic, Persian and Indian sources.

So it's all really rather a mix, and I see no reason why a contemporary sidereal astrologer shouldn't consider the Greek or Perso-Arabic tradition part of his/her own heritage. Indeed, a wholly sidereal version of Perso-Arabic astrology (called Tajika) still survives in India; but as with other forms of Indian astrology, finding clear, systematic (but not dumbed-down) presentations of it in English can be difficult.

My advice would be to go with your existing understanding of traditional astrology and just see whether it seems to work better using a sidereal zodiac (as I find that it does for me).

Thanks Martin. I was thinking about this earlier.

So everything I have learned so far is not wasted if I experiment for a while? That's a relief. Out of interest, which ayanamsha (sp?) do you prefer?

Konrad wrote:

For anyone who is interested, I looked through 23 Horary charts over last night and this morning and I have noted when Tropical works much more clearly...

I'm smiling, Konrad, because Horary works through the consciousness of the person drawing up the charts. So if they were drawn up in the tropical, then the tropical will give an accurate delineation. This is why horary works in either zodiac, depending on the consciousness and astrological system of the astrologer.

Quite annoyingly, I found that Lahiri described more of the situations more accurately i.e. house positions of the significators, dignities, aspects, timing etc.

Yes, although you can read the tropical chart, it still seems as if the dignities, significators, etc. don't leave their sidereal home. I see this working in Fern's chart.

To Martin or Therese: do you have any recommendations of some good traditional sidereal astrology books I could buy and find out more about it?

This is as Martin says. The books as they are written work fine in the sidereal zodiac. No changes are needed. You just assume they were written for the sidereal. Actually Ben Dykes has a small note on page 16 in his Persian Nativities, Vol 1 that the Zij tables used by Masha'allah were sidereal.

This is true, of course because these tables were revised in the year 556. A Sassanian conclave on that date set the zero point of the sidereal zodiac ten minutes west of the star, Zeta Piscium, and the zero year at 560 AD.

This became the canonical date and position for the initial point of the Arabic and Hindu sidereal zodiacs., and is still reflected in the Raman ayanamsa which has adjusted this date somewhat but is nowhere close to Lahiri. India discarded this old Persian zodiac after the Calendar Reform Committee set the Lahiri initial point of the zodiac opposite the location of Spica (zero Libra). No bright stars are located at zero Aries. The Raman ayanamsa, however, is still used by a small dedicated group of astrologers.

Therese wrote:

Horary works through the consciousness of the person drawing up the charts. So if they were drawn up in the tropical, then the tropical will give an accurate delineation. This is why horary works in either zodiac, depending on the consciousness and astrological system of the astrologer.

I agree, but would replace the word 'horary' with 'astrology'. I don't believe any astrological analysis or what we could describe a 'reading' or 'judgement' is free of the mind of the astrologer.

Here is the quote from Persian Nativities, Vol. 1 which required the zodiac notation by Ben Dykes:

...Concerning the rest of the stars, there appears some disagreement just as [there is] with Mars. Also, the Egyptians wholly dissented on the course of the stars, and the lot of fortune and Car Leonis (which is agreed will be necessary in the computation of the stars.) For instance, Ptolemy, concerning the length and breadth of the stars, puts it that there is an addition of one degree for [every] succeeding 100 years, all of which is plainly omitted in the Zij al-Shabriyr. (Book of Aristotle in Persian Nativities Vol 1, p. 16)

So this confirms zodiac parameters at the time of Masha'Allah in that particular culture.

I'm very interested in this comment from Therese:

The problem in reading a sidereal chart for those who aren't used to it is the same problem I had for a long time. Libra here in Fern's chart isn't the nice friendly tropical Libra. It's the energy we see in tropical Scorpio. So it's best to try to make the signs neutral and think of them purely in terms of their ruling and exalted planets, and maybe partly their trigons.

I remember another forum contributor who used sidereal astrology. I think she left astrology for religious reasons in the end, and we were all sorry to see her go because she was such a valuable contributor. She said something similar herself but my (limited) exposure to modern sidereal works hasn't shown this to be typical. Or is it? I am reading a book on sidereal astrology at the moment that gives wonderful descriptions of the signs - but they are just as I understand them and use them myself as a tropical astrologer. In this text there is no suggestion that the sidereal sign Libra is anything remotely like tropical Scorpio - I could give the sign descriptions straight to my students and they wouldn't be able to tell that they came from a work on sidereal astrology.

So I'm curious to know whether Therese's approach is widespread amongst siderealists or atypical. Anyone else care to comment on that?

Hi Deb. I am very far from being an expert on the subject, but I have been experimenting with the sidereal approach for awhile. A couple of years ago, I researched it obsessively online, where there is substantial support for Therese's findings about sign characteristics.

I am not sure to what extent quoting from copyrighted material is permitted on Skyscript, but posting a link to the following text would be confusing because the key point is embedded in a dense paragraph - so if it's all right, I will post this information from the FAQ page of Ken Bowser's website, http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com (and if it's not acceptable, please forgive my presumption and delete my post):


The sidereal position is that trait characteristics derive from the archetypal and original zodiac: the zodiac of the stars. An archetype is invested with meaning because it is original and self defining. It exists regardless of our awareness or beliefs. This issue addresses the matter of whether trait characteristics are carried by the sidereal signs or the tropical signs. In other words, which one is invested with legitimacy? They can't both be right. As the tropical signs precess farther and farther away from their sidereal namesakes, the most glaring issue between tropical and sidereal reckoning is thrown into bold relief. The meanings of the tropical signs have evolved to compensate for the problems of precession as the signs have slowly moved out of the territory of the constellations that was their original venue. For example, most of what is called Scorpio in terms of tropical zodiac reckoning is the constellation of Libra. Scorpio is aggressive, insistent, penetrating and intense. It is typically harsh, forceful, intolerant of opposition and will attempt to crush an opponent by any means. Libra is ruled by Venus. It has a tender, artistic, pleasure loving and gentle quality. Libra is clearly a lover?and not a fighter?like Scorpio. The result is that tropical Scorpio is assigned many of Libra?s qualities. It is seen as sensual and erotic. This sort of bleed-over has happened with all the signs. Sidereal astrology restores the crispness of the sign traits to their original venue which was usurped by the adoption of the tropical zodiac in the West. The sidereal position is that if someone has the Sun in tropical Scorpio but sidereal Libra, only the Libran traits are considered valid.


Bowser is not every siderealist's cup of tea, but he is a western sidereal astrologer whose work has come to public attention through an interview published in "The Mountain Astrologer" magazine (a link to the interview is provided on Bowser's site). There are other websites where similar information is presented, but I chose this one due to Bowser's visibility.

Whatever conclusions one draws, I am pleased that siderealists of Martin's and Therese's experience are willing to share their points of view here. As a student who experiences the sidereal approach as a rich dimension of astrology - rather than a separate entryway - I am very glad to see this discussion.

Libra is a lover? Libra is a cardinal, masculine sign. Al biruni associates it with corrupt behavior of women and Ibn Ezra says:

Its [elemental] nature is warm and moist, but it is not a beneficial mixture, and it indicates all air and cloud mixed with winds and vapor that rises and destroys life. - The Beginning of Wisdom p 50

Libra as lover, I would bet, whether Tropical or Sidereal, only goes back as far as planet=sign=house idea that moderns propose.

Thanks for that response Astraea. I think it illustrates the problem I am dealing with in trying to get informed on the typical sidereal approach. I am going to pass over some of those comments about what the authentic zodiacal archetype is, because there is a huge debate there that I?m not looking to get into.

If I don?t understand this properly I hope to be corrected, but here Ken Bowser is saying the opposite of Therese, which is what I have noticed elsewhere. Therese points to a chart where the Sun is in Libra according to the sidereal zodiac but Scorpio according to the tropical zodiac, saying ?Libra here in Fern's chart isn't the nice friendly tropical Libra. It's the energy we see in tropical Scorpio. So it's best to try to make the signs neutral ...?

Bowser is saying that sidereal Libra presents a purer form of Libra and quite the opposite of tropical Scorpio. So sidereal Libra is described by him as ?tender, artistic, pleasure loving and gentle ... clearly a lover?and not a fighter?like Scorpio?.

He is arguing an opposite scenario, that tropical Scorpio has acquired many of sidereal Libra?s qualities, by which he says that tropical Scorpio is now seen as sensual and erotic. I don?t relate to that myself and believe these kinds of Scorpio associations are modern ideas that extend from association with Pluto ? nothing really to do with any kind of bleed over from sidereal to tropical or vice versa. Anyway, the point is that Bowser maintains ?if someone has the Sun in tropical Scorpio but sidereal Libra, only the Libran traits are considered valid?, and it seems clear to me that what he considers to be Libran traits are fairly conventional Libran traits that we would find in most 19th/20th century astrology texts. Elsewhere I have seen him define Libra as friendly and peace-loving, so I would summarise his view as being that sidereal Libra is ?the nice friendly? Libra, and not ?the energy we see in Scorpio?.

I hope I am not upsetting the main focus of this thread, and don?t want to start up a controversy about this, but I am confused about what the typical sidereal position is, having seen Theresa and others explain it one way, and advocates such as Ken Bowser explain it differently.

Thanks, Deb. I do see what you are saying and have not the expertise to unravel the issue. Like you, I want to avoid controversy on this topic and might have instigated it by my post, without meaning to. If so, I apologize - and, in any case, I hope that an explanation more in line with your question will be forthcoming.

Deb wrote:I remember another forum contributor who used sidereal astrology. I think she left astrology for religious reasons in the end, and we were all sorry to see her go because she was such a valuable contributor. She said something similar herself but my (limited) exposure to modern sidereal works hasn't shown this to be typical. Or is it?

I'm not well up on modern sidereal astrology myself (that would be the Fagan school, I suppose?), but I have wondered, too. There are some notable differences between ancient/classical descriptions of the signs and modern descriptions, but that's another matter.

I am reading a book on sidereal astrology at the moment that gives wonderful descriptions of the signs - but they are just as I understand them and use them myself as a tropical astrologer.

Just out of curiosity, what book would that be?