Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello everyone,

I have been learning traditional astrology for quite some time and wanted to explore them in detail using birth horoscopes and delineating them and comparing with events in life. With that aim, a new astrology website was launched last month -->

https://satyastrology.com/

We will be using western traditional astrology and the tropical zodiac. There will be articles interesting for beginning and intermediate students. The focus will be on natal astrology through examples. If you find the the articles interesting, please consider subscribing (via the subscribe box in the footer).

Any comments, suggestions are welcome!

Thanks,
Satya

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the forum, Satya. Since you ask for comments and suggestions, and as I see that you refer to both Babylonian and Hellenistic astrology, I will venture two.

The first is that 'western astrology' is rather a misnomer, given the common cultural understanding of the word 'western' today. For the first thousand years of its history, horoscopic astrology largely flourished in the areas that are now called Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, most of which are routinely contrasted with the 'west'. Astrology didn't enter Latin Europe in any major way prior to the 11th century (and then it was with Islamic culture, and in Arabic). I understand that you probably mean 'horoscopic astrology outside India', as Indian astrology did develop in some unique directions, but I still think 'western' a less than ideal label.

My second comment is related to the first: it was only towards the latter part of the medieval period that the Arabic tradition became nearly exclusively tropical (in the sense of equating 0 Aries with the equinox). Vettius Valens and most of the Greek-language astrologers several centuries after Ptolemy still used a zodiac offset from the equinox, as did the Persians, the Indians, and the early Arabic-language authors like Sahl. So if you want to cast your net wide and span all those periods and cultural areas (as opposed to limiting yourself to, say, early modern European astrology), it would be misleading to focus exclusively on the tropical zodiac.

I discuss some of these points on my own website.

Hello Martin,

Thanks for your comments! Always good to have your inputs.

1. Yes by 'western traditional astrology', I am referring to traditional astrology of the Hellenistic and Arabic (medieval) period, primarily to distinguish from Indian/Vedic Astrology.

2. The website's focus will be more on examples rather than history and theory. I am aware of the tropical/sidereal perspectives and knowingly siding with the tropical zodiac. I have learned by reading delineations (based on tropical zodiac) by different astrologers (like Robert Zoller, Robert Hand, Benjamin Dykes, Dr. H, Chris Brennan) and find them quite profound. In any case, truth is (I think) always going to be subjective (at least for these kind of scenario) and one can only hope to be true to oneself and follow one's inclinations.

Satya

I don't think truth is subjective, but I don't object to anyone using whatever astrological parameters they want in their practice. What I am concerned about is precisely the skewed historical view that must result from citing Babylonian or Hellenistic or Arabic authorities while sweeping the zodiac difference under the carpet. Less well-informed readers will necessarily get the impression that the 'western tradition', meaning everything outside India, has always been tropical, and that is not any kind of truth: it's just false. And once a misunderstanding takes hold, dislodging it can prove nearly impossible.

So I'm not criticizing what you want to do, just what you are calling it. In any case, good luck with your website.

Since you mention Robert Zoller, perhaps it is not out of place to say that I briefly discuss his chart, with a comparison of tropical and sidereal perspectives, here (about halfway down the page).

Martin,

I understand your concern, but I don't think I am trying to misinform.

Martin Gansten wrote:Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the forum, Satya. Since you ask for comments and suggestions, and as I see that you refer to both Babylonian and Hellenistic astrology, I will venture two.

The first is that 'western astrology' is rather a misnomer, given the common cultural understanding of the word 'western' today. For the first thousand years of its history, horoscopic astrology largely flourished in the areas that are now called Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, most of which are routinely contrasted with the 'west'. Astrology didn't enter Latin Europe in any major way prior to the 11th century (and then it was with Islamic culture, and in Arabic). I understand that you probably mean 'horoscopic astrology outside India', as Indian astrology did develop in some unique directions, but I still think 'western' a less than ideal label.

My second comment is related to the first: it was only towards the latter part of the medieval period that the Arabic tradition became nearly exclusively tropical (in the sense of equating 0 Aries with the equinox). Vettius Valens and most of the Greek-language astrologers several centuries after Ptolemy still used a zodiac offset from the equinox, as did the Persians, the Indians, and the early Arabic-language authors like Sahl. So if you want to cast your net wide and span all those periods and cultural areas (as opposed to limiting yourself to, say, early modern European astrology), it would be misleading to focus exclusively on the tropical zodiac.

I discuss some of these points on my own website.

Hi Martin

I took a look at your website. Quoting:

Were ancient astrologers (other than Ptolemy) using the tropical zodiac, that is, the default zodiac of contemporary western astrology that equates 0° Aries with the equinox? The answer is that they were not.

I don't think the answer is so simple, though. Writing about a century earlier than Ptolemy, Marcus Manilius defines the zodiac as follows:

There are two circles, placed crosswise to each other, which are drawn from one pole and received by the other... They mark the seasons of the year and the division of heaven along the zodiac into four portions of equal months.

Astronomica 1.603-609

At the same time, he is aware that opinions differ on the
Solstice/Equinoxes being either 8°, 10° or 1° of their respective signs (Astronomica 3.680-682).

So it seems likely that, when Ptolemy wrote the Tetrabiblos, he didn't dream up his seasonally adjusted zodiac but merely conveyed a view already popular in his day. Which is what he did throughout his whole compendium, to be sure.

Michael

Hi Michael,

To begin with, let me clarify that I never said or meant that the tropical zodiac (= the one equating 0 Aries with the equinox) isn’t traditional. It’s certainly been around long enough to qualify as such. What I am saying is just that the reverse isn’t true: the tropical zodiac may be traditional, but the tradition isn’t (exclusively) tropical. In fact, the further back we go, the less tropical it becomes. Therefore, representing traditional astrology as tropical-only is a form of misinformation, whether intentional or not.

Manilius is an excellent example of what I discuss on my website, namely, that ancient (and many medieval) authors on astrology didn’t understand precession. (I say authors on astrology, as Manilius himself most likely wasn’t a practising astrologer.) Immediately after the lines you quote, he goes on to discuss which fixed stars those circles intersect. In other words, he relates them both to the seasons and to the constellations, which is par for the course. Therefore, the real question, as I also discuss, is how the starting point was defined; and the earliest author who advocated using the tropical zodiac for horoscopic astrology was, to the best of my knowledge, Ptolemy. Valens explicitly used the zodiac offset from the equinox by 8°, and so did most astrologers of this period, as well as for centuries to come. (Ironically, this value was further away from the true sidereal value than Ptolemy’s zodiac was, precisely because Valens and others didn’t understand precession and so were not aware that the equinox had shifted relative to the fixed stars.)

Michael Sternbach wrote:So it seems likely that, when Ptolemy wrote the Tetrabiblos, he didn't dream up his seasonally adjusted zodiac but merely conveyed a view already popular in his day. Which is what he did throughout his whole compendium, to be sure.

Well, yes and no. I think Ptolemy did ‘dream up’ parts of his system, not least by excluding elements of common practice that didn’t sit well with the philosophical underpinnings that he wanted to give it. And some views that he conveyed may have been popular in other contexts than strictly astrological ones, the tropical zodiac among them.

A case for the antiquity of the tropical zodiac long before Ptolemy is well presented here:

https://sevenstarsastrology.com/how-old ... al-zodiac/

Martin wrote:

The first is that 'western astrology' is rather a misnomer, given the common cultural understanding of the word 'western' today. For the first thousand years of its history, horoscopic astrology largely flourished in the areas that are now called Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, most of which are routinely contrasted with the 'west'. Astrology didn't enter Latin Europe in any major way prior to the 11th century (and then it was with Islamic culture, and in Arabic). I understand that you probably mean 'horoscopic astrology outside India', as Indian astrology did develop in some unique directions, but I still think 'western' a less than ideal label

.

This is a fair point. But we need some term to summarise this in contrast to Indian astrology. I had thought the term ''Eurasian''might better reflect this but this still leaves out the formative phase of hellenistic astrology in Alexandria in Egypt in Africa. I am not sure what the solution to this is. What is your suggestion Martin?

Mark

Mark wrote:A case for the antiquity of the tropical zodiac long before Ptolemy is well presented here:

I have to disagree, Mark. I think the author muddles several issues, not least by introducing the idea of the equinox being hard to find. It isn't really that hard, but whether it is or not, if an author explicitly defines the equinox as falling at 8 or 10 degrees in Aries, then it is clear that conceptually, to that author, the beginning of Aries is different from the equinox, irrespective of how hard either point may be to find in practice.

As for the rest, most of it concerns the use of tropical divisions outside astrology. I don't think anyone disputes that; at least I don't. But when it came to casting horoscopes, the tropical zodiac gained ground rather slowly even after Ptolemy (and arguably, like many technical parameters in the history of astrology, more through the availability of superior tables than through large-scale philosophical conversions).

This is a fair point. But we need some term to summarise this in contrast to Indian astrology. I had thought the term ''Eurasian''might better reflect this but this still leaves out the formative phase of hellenistic astrology in Alexandria in Egypt in Africa. I am not sure what the solution to this is. What is your suggestion Martin?

I'm not at all sure that we do need such a term. It tends to create a distinction in people's minds that isn't really matched by the historical evidence. Indian astrology did develop in some unique ways (in South India especially), but it wasn't entirely cut off from outside influences. Perso-Arabic astrology was a major influence in India (through the T??jika school) during the Mughal era, and so has modern English-language astrology been for the past 140 years or so. Conversely, Muslim, Jewish and Christian authors throughout the Middle Ages referred to Indian teachings (for instance, Abū Maʿshar borrowed the ninth-parts, which, if memory serves, are also described by Bonatti), and the 19th-century Theosophists appropriated all sorts of ideas from the Indians, technical and philosophical (although the latter in particular were often misunderstood).

So these aren't closed systems; but if I do want to talk about horoscopic astrology outside South Asia, that's usually what I call it. Or perhaps non-Indian astrology, if I'm being less formal.

satya7 wrote:Hello everyone,

I have been learning traditional astrology for quite some time and wanted to explore them in detail using birth horoscopes and delineating them and comparing with events in life. With that aim, a new astrology website was launched last month -->

https://satyastrology.com/

We will be using western traditional astrology and the tropical zodiac. There will be articles interesting for beginning and intermediate students. The focus will be on natal astrology through examples. If you find the the articles interesting, please consider subscribing (via the subscribe box in the footer).

Any comments, suggestions are welcome!

Thanks,
Satya

Hi Satya, thank you for sharing your work.

I like it! I just have one small question, not important by the way. I noticed that the "rectifications" section is only available if you scroll down to the very bottom of the page as opposed to the other sections that are at the very top right side of the page, is there a particular reason/meaning for this? or just simple coincidence?

Thanks,
Sam

Samantha wrote:

I like it! I just have one small question, not important by the way. I noticed that the "rectifications" section is only available if you scroll down to the very bottom of the page as opposed to the other sections that are at the very top right side of the page, is there a particular reason/meaning for this? or just simple coincidence?

Thanks, I added only one rectification recently (of Leonardo da Vinci).

https://satyastrology.com/leonardo-da-v ... ification/

so somehow missed to add the category in the top menu, will update it soon.
Thanks for letting me know.