Skyscript Astrology Forum

delete

varuna2 wrote: Since as far as we know, the Signs are a modern invention (my use of the term 'modern' means anything post-kaliyuga or within the last 5113 years) - not that all modern inventions are necessarily evil - this means the teachings on the Signs and rulers of those Signs, have not been passed down by the less devolved humans from previous world Ages - who were by nature, more connected with the 'music of the spheres' and the language of the gods.

I think it might be easier to follow if you accept that not all of us are familiar with terms like 'kali yuga' which has particularly religious meanings, which leads to the idea that there were higher evolved humans from which humanity has gradually devolved. These are not 'widely accepted' amongst astrologers, but are instead connected to particular religious or cultural theories.
Many astrologers here, myself included, would not necessarily follow the logic that some higher evolved life forms have passed to us what we know of astrology nor conclude that the signs, being more modern, are, by consequence, more prone to 'error' as they were invented by lesser evolved humans.
In other words, many, due to not being affiliated with these religio-cultural ideas would have to take this theory and the extension of its logic with a pinch of salt.

What we need is to understand both the philosophical, and just as importantly, the natural laws, on why it is so that Mars rules the section of space called Aries.

Well, it depends on which area of space we're talking about, is it the area of space as defined from a given star, or the area of space as derived from the spring equinox? If the latter then we already know why Mars rules Aries:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

I'm personally of the opinion that there was never a 'purely sidereal' astrology nor a 'purely tropical' astrology, but instead a fusion or hybrid, that the two are tightly woven.

Not only this, but we need to understand tables such as the Egyptian Terms or hadda index, in order to separate out the solar cycle basis from the constellation basis - regardless of whether we use the sidereal or tropical version of the zodiac.

Why? It's possible that the egyptian terms are based on a logic that is common to both zodiacs, or rather based on something not defined by its starting point. In other words learning more about these tables may not elucidate anything about separating the tropical from the sidereal. I've no idea what the hadda index is so I assume it is common in indian astrology?

The problem with the Egyptian Terms is that it could be a table which is not supposed to remain static and it may change with time, depending on the logical and natural law basis for it. Maybe it has something to do with the luni-solar year, since the luminaries are not included? Or the solar cycle, or the constellations? Or some other basis?

I agree, it would be great if we could understand the logic for how and why the bounds were assigned.

So if I have to, I will just revert back to the vedic teachings and puranas, since I am still unwilling to jump into the Abyss of Cornelius - not that the Void does not have a certain sense of comfort at times.

I'm curious, what would make you feel you have to do this?