Skyscript Astrology Forum

Deb wrote:

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.

Deb, the use of dignities and debilities is also central to my work, but we work in two different zodiacs. So it's rather like the question of the interpretation of sidereal signs--whether they are similar to the tropical or similar to the tropical sign in the same ecliptic location as the sidereal sign. How can the dignities and dibilities, triplicity lords and so forth work equally well in two different zodiacal systems?

So in some ways I can't relate to your statement "I don't see this as one system is right so another must be wrong." Yes, I agree that statement can work in many ways for interpretation, but I don't see how it can work for the dignities and debilities of planets. This would be a difficult comparative study, however, because first there would have to be foundation statements as to possible/probable effects of planets in signs. This would mean a text search, I suppose. Lot of work!

I've tried to show how traditional debilities work out in Fern's sidereal chart: Sun in Libra and Jupiter in Capricorn. Jupiter is ascendant lord and Moon's dispositor; Also Sun's dispositor is Venus in Virgo. So we have three major debilities in the chart. And Saturn itself is badly placed in Scorpio, a sign of Mars. Saturn has no affinity either with sign or triplicity.

Looking ahead, I've found a very different sidereal picture with Greenbaum's sanguine charts. The sanguine temperament, of course, gets along much better in social situations, so is seen as more favorable.

Deb wrote: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).

With apologies for encroaching on this thread just a little longer:

In the simplest terms, the ayanamsha is just the longitudinal value (given for a certain date) that you subtract from tropical positions in order to convert them to sidereally fixed positions. In other words, it's the difference in ecliptical degrees between the tropical and the sidereal.

There are several options because sidereal astrologers differ on what should be the exact starting point of the zodiac (though most definitions are within a few degrees of each other). Some definitions are based on one or more fiducial stars, while others are derived astrologically, arguing that a certain zero point seems to 'work best' with zodiac-based techniques. All the values increase at the precessional rate, however, and thus remain (more or less) fixed in relation to the constellations.

There is a discussion of ayanamshas at the Swiss Ephemeris site, but it is not exactly an idiot's guide; and while the maths is probably fine, I can't vouch for every detail of the (very brief) historical accounts included. Regrettably I haven't the time at present to do the background research needed to confirm or modify them -- hence my hesitation even to start a new thread.

Deb wrote: 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.

If these 'traditional' meanings were generated due to Mars as the ruler of Scorpio then presumably they would have been linked to Aries as well. If Mars is in Aries could someone have said or thought it will manifest in a harsh harsh or doubly harsh way, in itself at least.

Lilly's deceit would (just about) fit into the Psychological model, but not subtle. I don?t follow how a, traditionally speaking, Martian sign can be subtle and one then wonders why Lilly imagined it was fitting.

You suggest 'Intuitive' was linked to Water signs. I think this is also done by some more Theosophically influenced Astrologers today. It seems to crop up a lot with Pisces for some reason on ?modern? forums ? I would link this ??behaviour?? to the Fire Signs, although I might be tempted to replace Intuition with Pattern recognition.


As regards this 'modern' sign traits idea it seems to me the Psychological approach is to pay a lot of attention to the signs and elements where the Sun, Moon and Ascendent are involved. Once we hit Jupiter, sign wise, we are in generational peripheral territory. I've noticed 'tradtional' readings, as in Therese's Fern here, other planets can assume more importance than the luminaries. I think Schmidt has suggested that it was the case one or more of the Mer-Sat planets can be more important the the Sun or Moon during the time he has been focusing on. Again some seemingly irreconciliable differences in emphasis/focus.

Where conceptual understandings are incompatible (as demonstrated on this thread) this leads to inevitable semantic breakdowns and prevents effective, or meaningful, communication. I sometimes wish astrologers would wake up a little more in this respect.

Though not a traditional astrologer, I have still been reading this topic with great interest. (partly because I do use some techniques borrowed from Cyril Fagan)

I am trying to think of this conceptually/philosophically. There is a time in the future when Tropical Leo will (basically) be Sidereal Cancer. Now if there is anything to Astrology (and we all, here, know that there most certainly IS), then it is hard to logically/mathematically rationalize that Leo = Cancer, UNLESS the Tropical meanings of Leo matched the Sidereal meanings of Cancer.

Deb has mentioned that she was reading a sidereal book on the signs, where the meanings were the same as the tropical. This is a hard concept to rationalize away. If someone's Moon is in Tropical Leo, but Sidereal Cancer, it should not take long to see which is correct (imo). A Moon (either tropical or sidereal, if the meanings are basically the same, sign-wise) in Leo should show someone more inclined to needing the limelight and to building recognition for himself. In Cancer, it should be someone more inclined to needing emotional security. Take well-timed horoscopes of people with the Moon in the first 24? or so of Leo and look at which "Master" they ultimately serve. Actions fulfill needs and the needs of Moon in Leo should be very different from the needs of Moon in Cancer.

Another approach:

It seems that this "problem" could be explored through return charts for known events for well-timed, authenticated horoscopes.

In fact, this very thing has been done and one can find the very interesting article here, http://issuu.com/considerations/docs/07-2 beginning on page 66. It is interesting as well that this article is written by someone that for quite some time was a major proponent of sidereal astrology. (Even though this hints at the outcome of the article, and the title gives it away, I still think that it is relevant in this conversation and should be read for the points that it makes.)

To non-astrologers reading this who are just curious about astrology or are early students of the craft, it must seem peculiar to read astrologers basically putting forth the idea that, for instance Bill Clinton can be BOTH Libra rising AND Virgo rising.

Looking at people with Sun conjunct Moon conjunct Asc in the first 2/3rds of any particular sign should also make a few conspicuous points about this topic... Certainly a triple Aries and a triple Pisces should be distinguishable, no?

Peace

James

If these 'traditional' meanings were generated due to Mars as the ruler of Scorpio then presumably they would have been linked to Aries as well. If Mars is in Aries could someone have said or thought it will manifest in a harsh harsh or doubly harsh way, in itself at least.

The way I understand this is that each planet (save the lights) rules one masculine and one feminine sign. Masculine signs are more proactive and feminine signs are more reactive (in general). Reactive is subtle. Proactive is not. Mars in Aries is going to be obvious action. Mars in Scorpio less overt. Note Mars is still Mars in that he is acting, but he is acting overtly in Aries and covertly in Scorpio. In Aries he is General Patton. in Scorpio he is James Bond.

Alexander wrote:

Deb has mentioned that she was reading a sidereal book on the signs, where the meanings were the same as the tropical. This is a hard concept to rationalize away. If someone's Moon is in Tropical Leo, but Sidereal Cancer, it should not take long to see which is correct (imo). A Moon (either tropical or sidereal, if the meanings are basically the same, sign-wise) in Leo should show someone more inclined to needing the limelight and to building recognition for himself. In Cancer, it should be someone more inclined to needing emotional security.

Ah, and here is the rub! Tropical Leo loves attention, and tropical Cancer is said to be inscecure. Tropical Cancer is certainly sensitive, but the need for security would most likely depend on the position and aspects of the Moon.

One of these signs is ruled by the Moon and the other by the Sun. The question is: Does the Sun really crave attention, or is it the Moon, that which reflects, that needs the attention? I have started my series on the sidereal signs with exactly that question, and it is indeed the Moon rather than the Sun that is the attention seeker. The Moon needs that response from others. And this is tropical Leo. I've illustrated this by charts and quotes from The Gauquelin Book of Charts. If anyone is interested, here is the link: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/apolar1.htm

I have kept tropical longitudes in this article so it would be easier to understand.

This is really extremely important: the basic nature of the Sun and Moon, because the entire structure of the zodiac depends on their natures. And the Sun and Moon provide the logical basis for the sidereal zodiac.

Anyone can test the nature of the Sun and Moon. Find charts with either the Sun or Moon near the zenith point (aspecting the ascendant), and the other light in an obscure position. Which person craves the attention? It's as simple as that. A child in my family happens to have the Moon at the zenith point in tropical Cancer. She'll do anything, and I mean anything, to remain at the center of attention. She has a school-wide reputation and is taking drama classes.

Edit: It occurred to me that the example of the child in my family can be confusing. I meant to show that a very prominent Moon will wish for attention, and the sign itself, whether masculine or feminine, is secondary. In this instance the quality of the sign (tropical Cancer/sidereal Gemini) shows up as an emotional disposition, very prone to tears and tantrums. But the Moon itself is stronger in its reflective nature. Thus, the bid for attention in order to feel self-worth.

Here are two paragraphs from my article on the Sun and Moon, just to give a flavor for the article:

The Lights and Behavior
In the West we?ve confused solar/lunar meanings with discussions of archetypes and psychological traits which we believe are associated with the lights. This has led to the belief that the Moon is internal while the Sun is external. In reality the Moon is related to traditional feminine behavior, i.e. socializing, helpfulness, interest in relationships, liking the exchange of conversation and companionship. In short, the Moon looks outward from itself and finds inspiration and comfort with others.

The Sun is the ancient symbol for the soul. The soul lies deeply hidden beneath our daily restless thoughts and changing emotions. The Sun, therefore, represents a point of stillness, the center of the wheel so to speak. As such, the Sun relates more to the prototype of masculine behavior: satisfaction and a sense of self found in its own work, the enjoyment of personal creative endeavor, inner drive and concentration directed toward a concrete goal. Solar emphasis is on contacting the center within rather than on bringing in what is external to ourselves. In the negative sense, the Sun looks too much to itself without considering the needs and interests of others.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/apolar1.htm

Atlantean wrote:

Deb has mentioned that she was reading a sidereal book on the signs, where the meanings were the same as the tropical. This is a hard concept to rationalize away.

Not necessarily. Its actually quite possible depending on what kind of siderealist you actually are. After all sidereal astrology is not monolithic is it?

I would suggest there are in crude terms at least four approaches to sidereal astrology which may all present the subject of signs differently.

A) Modern Western Siderealism in the Cyril Fagan tradition.
Astrologers within this approach are modern in outook and incorporate outer planets. This also includes outer planet rulership of signs. This inevitably colours their approach to signs.

B) Traditional Western siderealism. Using all the familiar features of western traditional astrology with a sidereal rather han tropical zodiac. Just as with tropicalists there will be those more influenced from a hellenistic or medieval outlook.

C) Modern Indian Astrology Some traditional siderealists have been critical of the influence of western tropical astrology on modern Indian astrology. Their criticism is even more intense of some varieties of so called 'Vedic astrology' which has been popularised by western teachers in North America. The point being that they have diluted and in some cases distorted our understanding of classical Indian astrology. This raises the question of how authentic many popular guides to Indian astrology are in representing its classical teachings.

D) Classical or Traditional Indian Astrology Utilising the methods of ancient and medieval Indian astrology.

There is clearly a lot of common ground between a western traditional and classical Indian approach. However, Indian astrology has developed many distinctive characteristics of its own. Undoubtably, the most crucial difference is the prime importance of the Lunar Mansions (Nakshatras) in Indian astrology.

A former siderealist member here suggested that while the meaning of the signs has remained the same in the sidereal zodiac, the tropical interpretations of the signs have changed over time because of precession. Hence the argument runs if you look at ancient astrologers like Vettius Valens you see quite different characteristics assigned to signs than you see today. In a nutshell the argument is many of the characteristics of the signs described by Valens have shifted to the next sign in zodiacal order.

Note: From a tropical perspective the sidereal zodiac is moving forward through the tropical signs. For a siderealist the perspective is reversed with the the tropical zodiac moving backwards through the sidereal signs.

Hence it is suggested the tropical Cancer of today sounds more like Valens description of Gemini while Valens Cancer sounds more like the tropical Leo today.

This position was extremely well put by a former member of Skyscript ( Sari). Sari eventually dropped out of astrology after deciding it was not compatible with her faith. While she never converted me to siderealism I always enjoyed her well informed input. Like Therese she was a traditional siderealist. Here is part of one of her posts to me from a discussion I had with her some years back:

Sari wrote:

The biggest mistake people make with the sidereal zodiac is that they try to apply modern tropical delineations onto it, then dismiss it altogether when they don?t work. One should instead read old texts very carefully, for example Valens. Comparing Vettius Valens and Linda Goodman is especially interesting.

For example, why does Valens say that Leo despises flattery (Anthology I, translated by Project Hindsight), and then Linda Goodman writes: ?A little flattery will get you everywhere with your Leo lady. You've already found out it's her secret weakness.? Is Goodman simply wrong? Why then has her Sun sign book sold possibly more than any astrological book before and after, being the bible of the sign traits in modern astrology? Or was Valens wrong? Or have the signs mysteriously changed? Or has the meaning for words changed so that what we today see as proneness to flattery was something completely opposite for the ancients?

But then we have Cancer who ? according to Valens ? is theatrical and fond of repute, pleasure and entertaining. Wait a minute, isn't this the Leo whom Goodman describes as follows: ?But the typical lion is a spectacular gambler at heart, often wildly extravagant; even the rare cat who pinches pennies will dress expensively, and always look well turned out. He wants first class and luxury all the way, and he'll spend freely on fun and pleasure.??

There are more surprising delineations in Valens: Geminis who are prudent, effeminate and capable in matters of household management (and we thought that it was Cancer whom Goodman wrote about ?Don't ever let her get the edge on cooking and homemaking. Let her teach you how to bake lemon chiffon pie.?). Valens says that Taurus is versed in handicraft, Goodman writes about Gemini that ?Geminis are experts at sleight of hand?.

Valens says that Sagittarius is enigmatical, authoritative, kingly, notable and lover of reputation, and this is how Goodman describes Capricorn: ?He's such a shy, sweet soul, a trifle stubborn perhaps, but gentle about it. He seems so harmless. What a safe person to trust and confide in-how pleasantly he builds your ego. Who could hurt him or suspect him of ambition? All the while, Capricorn is using your own weaknesses, conceits and jealousies to make himself stronger. He's useful and eventually so indispensable that you ask him to take over the reins. Then hell rule unobtrusively in the corner, modestly pulling the strings of authority. The goat sub?merges his ego to gain what his ego truly desires-the position of the real leader.?

And how about Capricorn, the Goat-Horned, in Valens? text? Here we find the following list: licentious, bad, fond of laughter, making bad mistakes, fickle, mischievous, a shameful liar. Compare this with the respectable cautiousness of Capricorn in Goodman?s text! But as you've already guessed, we?ll find all the qualities of Valens? Capricorn in Goodman?s Aquarius. And then of course Pisces by Valens: full of eruptions, restless, rough, sociable, erotic, licentious, popular. I need not to quote what Goodman says about Aries here, don?t I?

Of course there are weaknesses in this argument. Not the least the comparison of Valens to a pop astrologer like Goodman. The more interesting question is do we see medieval and renaissance astrologers do the same kind of thing over time? As I see it this argument doesn't work at all in the majority of signs. You really have to cherry pick to find any cross overs. Valens description of all the signs sound little like a tropical delineation of the following sign to me. That is not to suggest Valens approach to the signs is synonymous to later medieval and renaissance attitudes in all instances. Even Ptolemy's approach to the signs was different to the later tradition in that he did not use elements and attributed his own system of qualities to the signs. Hence Cancer was a 'moist and warm' sign not a cold sign and Scorpio being Mars ruled was a 'dry' sign.

It should be said Valens is just one astrological source. He is quite idiosyncratic and unrepresentative in assigning personality characteristics to the signs. As Deb and Tom have already pointed out traditional astrological texts normally set out the planets as the key determinants of character not the signs in themselves. On the other hand modern astrology has reversed this outlook with the focus on Sun sign astrology and what one might call 'signism'.

Mark

Atlantean wrote: Looking at people with Sun conjunct Moon conjunct Asc in the first 2/3rds of any particular sign should also make a few conspicuous points about this topic... Certainly a triple Aries and a triple Pisces should be distinguishable, no?

This is what would be expected by the majority of astrologers . By and large natal astrologers write as though they are describing objective reality . As long as the astrologers could agree on the dispositions for the two signs it shouldn?t be that hard to measure.

And how about Capricorn, the Goat-Horned, in Valens? text? Here we find the following list: licentious, bad, fond of laughter, making bad mistakes, fickle, mischievous, a shameful liar. Compare this with the respectable cautiousness of Capricorn in Goodman?s text! But as you've already guessed, we?ll find all the qualities of Valens? Capricorn in Goodman?s Aquarius. And then of course Pisces by Valens: full of eruptions, restless, rough, sociable, erotic, licentious, popular. I need not to quote what Goodman says about Aries here, don?t I?

Very odd, neither Valens or Goodman's descriptions, assuming Sari is representing these accurately, appear to have much resemblance to '' Modern Psychological''' sign meanings and you suggest are not that close to later Traditional meanings either. So one wonders what point Sari was trying to make here ?

Tom wrote: The way I understand this is that each planet (save the lights) rules one masculine and one feminine sign. Masculine signs are more proactive and feminine signs are more reactive (in general). Reactive is subtle. Proactive is not. Mars in Aries is going to be obvious action. Mars in Scorpio less overt. Note Mars is still Mars in that he is acting, but he is acting overtly in Aries and covertly in Scorpio. In Aries he is General Patton. in Scorpio he is James Bond.

This conception has, for me, an approachable rationale and coherency to it. Looking at these through a modern psychological lens I can imagine some might say Mars in Aries manifests with a more overt impulsive bravery and Scorpio a more covert manipulative bravery ?

Thanks for the post, Mark. I certainly enjoyed reading Sari's descriptions since I wasn't a forum member when she was posting.

I am puzzled by Valens' sign descriptions because we don't find them in later Hellenistic literature. I haven't had time to check all the Persian literature yet.
But Sari is fun to read. Sari, we want you back!!