Deb write:

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?

My approach is definitely atypical, Deb, but I'm quite sure it's correct. From my experience I would say that making the sidereal signs exactly the same as the tropical signs of the same name is as Spock would say, "Captain, that is not logical."

From my point of view, making the sidereal signs the same as the tropical is just plain wrong. And this approach is found everywhere in the western and Jyotish literature. How can one segment of the ecliptic have two totally different and opposing meanings just because a different label is used?

I'm sorry, Deb, but I feel very strongly about this.

So I owe a great debt to tropical astrologers for taking a century to observe sign traits. I don't reject them at all. Like Cyril Fagan, my belief is that they have been seeing the nature of the underlying sidereal signs. Plain and simple. Call the signs whatever you like. The nature of the energy in any segment or degree of the ecliptic is exactly the same.

The forum member who also used my appraach was Sari M. Yes, she left astrology for religious reasons. A sad loss.

Therese

The latest Ben Dykes' translation arrived in the mail today, the hefty 700 page Book of the Nine Judges. I don't travel, don't take vacations and have stopped attending conferences. But I do buy books. Those of us who can afford it are collecting a series of very valuable translations.

This reminded me that these paperback books need to be preserved. The covers can easily become bent and soiled with use. When one of these books arrives in the mail before I even crack the cover I take out a roll of clear Con-tact paper. This paper is sticky on one side and I wrap the entire cover, clipping the corners and turning the paper to the inside. This keeps the cover flat and strong and prevents the pages from curling. I also keep curtains over my bookcases to keep light out. Well, just my two cents for keeping these works in mint condition.

If anyone would like a new copy of Dykes' very attractive gold embossed red hardback of Works of Sahl and Masha'Allah, please PM me. I want to buy the separate paperbacks to match the other editions of Dykes' books. I bought the "Works," but have never used it. It's in mint condition. I just like the comfy feeling of reading paperbacks.

Therese

Astraea wrote: 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. .[/i]

If we break this down he gives these words/ideas for Scorpio :

Insistent, Aggressive, Harsh, Forceful, Intolerant (of opposition), Fighter, Sensual

None of these fit with the Psychological Scorpio (which some folks here may conceptualise as 'modern') .

So where does Bowser get these ideas about this contemporary Tropical Scorpio ?

But he also says :
Penetrating, Intense, Erotic

Which are more Scorpio, nowadays at least, albeit less so Erotic. But Scorpio is the sex/intimacy sign according to this schema so I suppose erotic is possible , but erotic is a little softer, more flowery or Venusian than this Mars/Pluto influenced space.

My hunch is, unlike Psychological Astrologers and perhaps some 'Traditional' Astrologers ?, Bowser is not seeing this sign as the 2nd Water Sign, Fixed and the 2nd pivotal sign in the 3rd (Relationship) Quadrant.

All very puzzling as the inference is, for me, he is suggesting Scorpio has borrowed Libran meanings more recently. He then describes others of these :
''tender, artistic, pleasure loving and gentle quality''.

Again none of these 4 to my knowledge have permeated into Tropical Scorpio in the more serious/depth modern books at least. Perhaps some 'modern' cookbooks?

Perhaps some traditonal astroogers here can let me/us know if any of these
meanings - Insistent, Aggressive, Harsh, Forceful, Intolerant (of opposition), Fighter, Sensual -
were linked to Scorpio pre 1900?

If so then perhaps his logic is suggesting 'Traditonal' Scorpio has been corrupted by 'Modern', or his Modern, Libra. Unlikely as the constellations/signs merged in the Hellenistic period and slowly seperated afterwards so less empirical confusions and blendings likely then, perhaps.

In case of confusion here are 16 words describing Scorpio, which I imagined were relatively mainstream or accepted today (whether they should be is another question). I can't see any Libran (Cardinal , (2nd) Air , ruled by Venus) dispostions or manifestations or behaviours in any of these:

Integration, Intense, Darkness, Intimacy, Deep, Penetrating, Struggle, Defence, Union, Submission, Fear, Secretive, Potent, Magnetic, Jealous, Suspicious.

(It would be an interesting thread to compare 10 words for a sign, employed by a ''well-known'' astrologer, in each of the last 20 centuries).

Hi Deb and all,

I don't like a lot of controversy, but any discussion of sign traits in zodiacs very quickly heads that way. Yet, the topic is an important one. Why not try looking at a number of natal charts in both zodiacs, charts for which we have fairly extensive observed traits? There are many of these timed charts in the Rodden databank.

What the Fagan school has done, and what I disagree with, is they have taken each planet and more or less copied the traits of that planet to the signs. They hadn't studied trigon lords, triplicities, dirurnal and nocturnal planets, masculine and feminine signs, etc. So they were working with an incomplete deck of cards.

Each planet owns two signs, and those two signs can be very different from each other because one is feminine and one is masculine, and each planet has different expressions. So Venus tends to be light and friendly in sidereal Taurus (tropical Gemini) and much heavier in Libra, a masculine sign. Venus is happier in a sign of its own gender.

Just a few comments highlighting reasons for western siderealists assingment of traits to signs.

I have to explain something I said earlier. I said I agreed with Cyril Fagan who said tropical astrologers were observing sidereal signs. That is true as far as it goes, but western siderealists immediately went theoretical instead of adopting tropical traits. And Cyril Fagan never completed an analysis of signs. He died before he could do that, so we don't know what his conclusions would have been.

I also want to add that Tropical sign literature combines two factors: actual observation and theory. Observation should be fairly accurate. Theory can be wrong or only partially correct. So when I say that the sideral signs are like the following tropical signs, I mean generally confirmed observation only.

Therese

No, Saturn is in its own triplicity when it's in Libra. But Libra itself carries a Saturnian tone due to Saturn's influence on the trigon. If you think about this trigon in the tropical (that is, Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces), we don't usually see the joy of life in those three signs. This is explained sidereally by Saturn's influence on those signs (Gemini, Libra, Aquarius).

In Fern's chart we have the Sun in its fall in Libra. In one of the Sanguine charts Saturn sits right at the top of the chart in sidereal Libra, its exaltation. This illustrates the difference between a planet in its fall and a planet in exaltation. (The dispositors must be considered as well.)

The more you write the more puzzled I become. What is the Horoscopic Logic of the Air signs being more able to experience and express ''Joy'' than the water signs? I would say it would depend on the quality or nature or orientation or stimulus, etc of the Joy.

What do you mean by one of the ''sanguine '' charts?

This could be an error. Have any controlled studies been done with Pluto? Garth Allen (Donald Bradley) found Pluto to be a loner, not connected to an idea of the "collective." Pluto is with the Sun in Fern's chart. She's anything but a part of a collective.

The Outer planets describe, in this model, your relationship to the 'events of your time', simply put. A close Pluto aspect to the Sun could indicate you live on an island away from any human contact or are on a Rally every weekend. It would depend on the rest of the chart. However, since astrological meanings tend to be multivalent, and a lot of the cultural and familial context of the life is not on the chart (in this model/thinking), it would (probably) be impossible to 'predict' one way or the other.

Bradley I know little about, but when I have bumped into him my vague recollections of his approach to planetary and sign meanings was a touch left-field, and suggested a more insular or personally developed semantic apparatus. Perhaps inevitable at the time with his sidereal bent ?

To my knowledge sidereal astrology doesn't employ seasonal symbolism. That's why we're not fans of Ptolemy. Sign traits are linked to ruling and exalted planets, and also to sections of the constellations. The symbolism of the individual lunar mansions relates to stars and constellations. The triplicities were originally linked to the four winds and direction in Mesopotamia rather than to qualities or elements.

To examine this we would need to analyse 10 words for Aries, and then the other signs, and see if these had seasonal/tropical, constellational, rulership/exalted associations.

The traits I gave to the tropical triplicites were taken from standard tropical texts. I used Rob Hand's Horoscope Symbols and other texts. Yes, I should have these traits completely notated, which I don't. But they all came from the standard texts. Some day I will probably have to go back and make a list of which traits came from which texts.

Can you name some of these standard Tropical Texts? I don?t have Hands book to Hand, excuse the pun.

The last bit of text by Hand I recall reading was his delineation in 'Under One sky' where he was employing a hybrid Medieval/Psychological model. More medieval from memory. If he was overtly shifting earth/fire qualities I would have hoped I may have remembered. However, Horoscopic Symbols came out in 1981 only a few yrs after Psychological Astrology arrived with its elemental linkages to Jungian types so it may be at the time Hand was reliant on, or influenced by, previous modern texts which did not make the same distinction or it may be he is using some 'traditional' elemental ideas here. Once you identify which other texts you are relying on we might be more able to get to the bottom of it?

Nixx wrote:

What is the Horoscopic Logic of the Air signs being more able to experience and express ''Joy'' than the water signs?

You are getting the tropical mixed up with the sidereal here. It's the quality of the triplicity lords and the rulership of signs. Sidereal Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius have Saturn trigon rulership and Saturn owns Aquarius and is exalted in Libra. The sidereal (earth) trigon has Venus and Moon rulership. Lighter, happier, more social planets. (The noted "sanguine" quality of tropical air.)

What do you mean by one of the ''sanguine '' charts?

These are in Greenbaum's book and haven't been discussed yet.

Can you name some of these standard Tropical Texts? I don?t have Hands book to Hand, excuse the pun.

I cannot do that now due to a a lack of time. I remember I did use Isabel Pagan's From Pioneer to Poet. The material I used in the introduction to this thread was taken from articles I wrote some years ago.

Sorry I missed this question earlier:

Konrad wrote: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?

Ayanamsha or ayanamsa are both fine; ayan???a if you want to use diacritics. (Sanskrit ? is, generally speaking, a somewhat 'thinner' sh sound than the English one.) As it happens, I use the same ayan???a as Therese, that is, Krishnamurti. So did the late siderealist Richard Houck (who may be remembered by some as the author of The Astrology of Death, among other things), who arrived at it independently -- that is, he didn't know the Krishnamurti value existed, but experimentation led him to adjust the Lahiri value by about 6 minutes of arc. For most purposes, of course, the difference is negligible.

Martin - I'll PM you about the book because its a work in production and I'm not sure what details should be released about it yet.

Therese - a bit off-topic but I liked your post about books. When my life is more orderly I make personalised covers even for cloth bound hardbacks - and small A5 journals like the early PH publications are housed in A5 plastic sleeves inside A5 size ringfolders with personalised folder ends, as in pic below: That comes from a time when my life was orderly - nowdays I have piled up stacks of new books that I can''t find time to read, let alone preserve.

I think it would be a good idea if you copied that notice about the Sahl and Mashahallah book over to the 'News, notice, books and links', section of the forum. It's OK to put an asking price if you have one in mind. It would be good to have that section of the forum used more for astrologers making contact with other astrologers for things like this. If I didn't have it myself I'd want it, but I do have it - for me it is one of the most important and useful books I have.

Re: the approach to Libra. The discussion has been helpful to me in showing that different approaches exist. In my opinion (ie., my understanding at the moment) this is not necessarily defined by whether the approach is tropical or sidereal but likely to be affected by many other issues, such as whether the astrologer gives the emphasis to modern or traditional rulers, is of a western school or inclines towards Indian sources, takes a heavily psychological approach, etc. What the signs ought to mean, by any system, is a bigger issue than I want to get involved in myself at the moment, for lack of time.

Nixx - as a very quick response to your question, you say:

Perhaps some traditonal astroogers here can let me/us know if any of these meanings - Insistent, Aggressive, Harsh, Forceful, Intolerant (of opposition), Fighter, Sensual - were linked to Scorpio pre 1900?

I haven't searched for the words in traditional texts, but off the top of my head, all the fixed signs are persistent, and because Scorpio is governed by Mars it has a reputation for being "insistent'". "Aggressive, Harsh, Forceful, Intolerant (of opposition), Fighter" - all gel with the traditional associations of Scorpio, based on the fact that it is a sign ruled by Mars. "Sensual" - I think this word has different meanings that are only understood in context, but Scorpio is a feminine water sign so it has strong intuitive senses. I haven't checked whether we would find a phrase like that in pre 1900 sources, but I'd say that the principle of it appears in tradtional descriptions such as Lilly's (CA p.97), where he says that the sign represents men who are "subtle" and have a talent for deceit. In general though, traditional literature places more emphasis on understanding character by analysis of planets, and the signs act as descriptive modifiers of these. It seems to be a modern tendency to bring the sign traits more to the fore without consideration of the planet they are holding and the overall condition of that planet.

To Martin and all - I get lost in discussions about the ayanamshas. If any sidereal astrologer here has time to spare I'd love to see a new thread explaining what the different ayanamshas are and how and why they differ (or a good, 'idiots'guide' explanatory article that could be posted on the site).

Deb wrote:

In general though, traditional literature places more emphasis on understanding character by analysis of planets, and the signs act as descriptive modifiers of these. It seems to be a modern tendency to bring the sign traits more to the fore without consideration of the planet they are holding and the overall condition of that planet.

This is exactly how I see the difference in modern times between the tropical and sidereal systems. In the sidereal the signs act as descriptive modifiers of the planets, and the signs also carry a general tone of the ruling and exalted planets of the sign itself.

Today, as you said, Deb, the tropical tendency seems to bring the sign traits to the fore. The tropical signs also seem to have generally lost their connection to ruling and exalted planets. I mean that those planets often don't describe how we observe the sign acting.

In all the sidereal systems, western and Indian, the planets still hold sway. As I mentioned previously, the western sideral system places so much emphasis on the planets that the signs are almost negligible. Some astrologers have actually discarded the signs altgether. This is why I believe that western sidereal astrologers most likely don't understand the signs nearly to the extent that tropical astrologers do. So it seems that they simply copy planetary traits to the signs without consideration of other factors.

I am thinking about your question on the ayanamsa. I know I have the information on sites that cover this topic somewhere.

I should clarify that I didn't say it was a "tropical tendency" (!) - the point I made is that personal perspectives get affected by many things, and something like this is affected by popularisation. As a tropical astrologer myself I know that the planets are the heart of any chart, and matters like planetary phase, closeness of aspect and angularity trumps all (my experience is that most well trained astrologers realise this too whichever house or zodiac systemes they use). But still, the use of dignities and debilities is pivotal in my work, so your comment that tropical signs "seem to have generally lost their connection to ruling and exalted planets" is one I find hard to relate to. I don't see this as one system is right so another must be wrong - I just suppose that whatever any astrologer 'observes' is always coloured by their own personal lens. There is however just one type of astrology that we all know ourselves to be the world's best expert in - our own. That goes for me too