Tom wrote:drawing on symbolism from the shape of the constellation Libra in a tropical (nothing to do with the constellations any more) delineation of a chart with no major or visible factors in tropical Libra.
Sorry but I don't think the shape of the constellation Libra looks anything like a scale. I didn't mention the constellation - only the symbolism of the sign Libra. Antiscia isn't visible either neither is the MC or any house cusps. Maybe we shouldn't use those.
If you wish to practice sidereal astrology fine. Go and do it. But if you want to lobby on its behalf, take it elsewhere.
From this point on sidereal astrology stays in the sidereal Forum. That clarifies things and solves any potential problems.
That's what I thought you thought, and that's why I posted on the sidereal forum and simply indicated here that I'd posted there.
Then you took the trouble to look up the sidereal chart in order to say (in this forum)
In Western astrology Mars in this chart is essentially strong (in domicile) and accidentally strong (angular). I applied western rules to a sidereal chart mostly as a curiosity. But in that case Mars switches to essentially weak while maintaining accidental strength. IF that doesn't work out the same way in Indian astrology, so be it. For this reason we need to be clear where we are coming from so that readers understand what writers mean
I don't do sidereal. I have nothing against it, but I have enough going on without adding a zodiac. I have to point out something in this chart though comparing the two zodiacs.
In the tropical, Mars is in Domicile opposite the MC which is in his detriment. Mars is very strong. In the sidereal, the MC is in Aries ruled by Mars posited in his detriment. Mars is very weak.
Let's see how this plays out when we discuss who he is.
You raised that, not me, and it sounds like lobbying on behalf of tropical to me, espectially as you posted the chart and had already decided that mars was strong (as you later confirm with the results). I then responded with this (no more, no less, no lobbying):
Tom
I'd noticed that Mars was in detriment, but as I learnt my first astrology Indian-style, detriment is not recognised. Maybe it should be. But my point about Mars on the sidereal forum is that it's angular, an accidental benefic for Cancer ascendant generally by ruling a WS trine and and an angle (as it does for Leo too), and especially in this chart where it is in a particularly strong and benefic combination (placed in an angle, fully aspecting H10 which it rules, and also 11, job earnings, and 7). And Saturn, Jupiter, NN and Mercury also aspect 10 - lots of "influences".
I think I'm right that for some astrologers (maybe Richard Houck, if I remember, or maybe it's an Indian thing) the power of the aspect can be quite different from the celestial state of the planet, and terrestrial placement can also over-ride celestial.
Graham
That point about Mars being benefic because ruling a trine and a square (WSH) is equally valid tropically, so I didn't think it was out of place here, as the idea of terrestrial state perhaps taking precedecne over celestial (that's in Morin, if I remember right).
You then posted:
What I don't know about Indian astrology would fill libraries. In Western astrology Mars in this chart is essentially strong (in domicile) and accidentally strong (angular). I applied western rules to a sidereal chart mostly as a curiosity. But in that case Mars switches to essentially weak while maintaining accidental strength. IF that doesn't work out the same way in Indian astrology, so be it. For this reason we need to be clear where we are coming from so that readers understand what writers mean
Which is exactly what I'd done.
And you went on:
I don't do sidereal. I have nothing against it, but I have enough going on without adding a zodiac. I have to point out something in this chart though comparing the two zodiacs.
In the tropical, Mars is in Domicile opposite the MC which is in his detriment. Mars is very strong. In the sidereal, the MC is in Aries ruled by Mars posited in his detriment. Mars is very weak.
Let's see how this plays out when we discuss who he is.
Then in your last post you say
Even if one side is trying to learn the other it becomes difficult to reconcile exactly what is going on when one side has Mars in domicile and the other in detriment in the same chart.
That's exactly why I hadn't mentioned it here - but you did. I noticed that others (working tropically) thought detriment was at best only a minor affliction, so I don't think it can be a clincher for this chart anyway.
Secondly, and this will rankle some, it is all too common for siderealists to use public opportunities to promote their system over the tropical. The mystery chart threads are, as stated above are for practical application, not advocacy. Since it is a small number of astrologers who use the sidereal zodiac the prospect of a captive audience might be too great a temptation to resist. We have a sidereal forum; use it.
Well it did rankle me because I wasn't "using public opportunities to promote their system" (at least, not in this thread), but it looks to me like you were. And "a small number of astrologers use the sidereal zodiac": well, if you include Indian they might even be a bigger number than those who use tropical (I realise you must not be including them, although the fundamentals of their system are basically the same as Western traditonal, espectially Hellentistic, and can help us understand how some lost classical and traditional techniques may have been used).
But anyway, your proposed compromise is what I was doing anyway, so that's fine. But given your position, and to avoid misuderstanding, I think you should rename this forum "Traditional Tropical Astrology". Because sidereal astrologers consider themselves traditinal as well. As Martin said in the parallel thread on this mystery chart in the sidereal forum:
the dignities as such antedate the historical use of the tropical zodiac as commonly understood (i.e., the zodiac equating 0 Aries with the vernal equinox), and the Persians certainly seem to have used them with a sidereal zodiac, as did (and do) Indian Tajika astrologers, to whom these dignities are known as the pa?ca-varga or 'group of five'.
Of course, the Indians and Persians were hardly 'western' in any meaningful sense of the term; but then again, arguably, nor were the Hellenistic Egyptians or the medieval Arabic authors on whom almost all traditional astrology outside of India rests.
And I don't think the constellation Libra looks like a pair of scales either, but someone must have somewhere down the line, which is why it was got called The Scales, which was why the sign got its name, which is why it became associated by some with balance and justice, as it is I think in modern Sun sign astrology. I was not of course suggesting that we shouldn't use invisible factors (I said "major OR visible"), and I was wrong to imply that a calculated lot might not be valid just because it's currently little known. But I was disappointed that, having gone to the trouble to check out the sidereal chart to try to show that it wasn't as valid as the tropical one because it had Mars in Libra, you didn't also (however briefly) acknowledge this when drawing parallels between Libra and baseball.
Graham
