Skyscript Astrology Forum

Tom wrote: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.

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

Tom, you have good a point there. Pankajdubey made a similar point on the sidereal forum, about mixing Indian and Western techniques/rules. But I don't know what to do about it. I was in the habit of asking the occasional thing or contributing an observation to this Traditional forum, without saying that, for myself, I was seeing how these things work sidereally, because this is not the place to raise this issue. In future, if I want to try a mystery chart I'll post on the sidereal forum (not the strictly Indian one, the general "mish-mash" one), and simply indicate in Traditional that I've posted in Sidereal. Those who don't won't to know about sidereal don't have to look (but to me, this would show a surprising lack of curiosity).
I'd appreciate it if undated/timed/placed charts could be posted in sidereal (any house system, any ayanamsa so long as its specified, which it will be if taken from SF, for example).
It's up to me not to muddy the waters of the Traditional forum, if the consensus is that Traditional means tropical and a set of rules from particular specified authorities from particular periods and places (though, when you look into it these periods and places don't seem so separate). There are already important differences of approach in the forum with regard to quadrant or whole sign houses, for example - in many cases, if you apply the same rules using these two different systems, you'll get different results, but there is also a possible theoretical reconciliation emerging, with WSH perhaps for topic, quadrant for strength).

In this particular case, I get the feeling that you may know that this guy (in the "Quickie mystery chart") has Mars-type things strongly emphasised in his life, and that on some level you'd like that to be emphasised in the tropical chart and not the sidereal one. You have found indicators of Mars strength tropically using some generally accepted principles, and I did so sidereally, and quoted a classic text to support. The problem here is that we may both feel that we can't both be right about our zodiacs (we may both be right in this particular case, by chance, but not overall, in principle). Despite details like this detriment question, the rulerships, methods and principles are broadly the same in tropical as in sidereal (even in Indian, once you strip away the plethora of micro-rules). The principle I was referring to is quite intelligible to a traditional tropical astrologer: a planet become a great accidental benefic in a chart if it rules both an angular whole-sign house and a trinal WSH (from the ascendant sign). That planet is not only benefic but also strong if it is placed in an angle. It will be strong for career if it is the ruler of H10, aspecting H10 (and R1 in 10). Some but not all of this happens also to apply tropically, because Leo also has Mars ruling a trine sign and an angular one, and Mars is still placed angular in 4. But in most other cases, with a change of zodiac currently shifting everything by about 24?, chances are that if we apply broadly the same rules to the two charts we will not get the same answers. (This is a bit like the use of WSH versus quadrant houses, only I can't see a reconciliation on the horizon. That bothered me, which is why I toyed with the idea, on this forum, of whether the exaltations could be a separate tropical system of dignity, related to the solstice and equinox points.) Different rules for different zodiacs, maybe; same rules (broadly speaking) for different zodiacs, no. It's like using the same tools on different raw materials. So there are a number of possibilities:
- Astrology doesn't work, it's just chance and intuition.
- Both tropical and sidereal astrology work to a fair degree, a fair amount of the time, because, although using different zodiacs, many elements do not depend on the zodiac (sect, aspects without reference to rulerships, angularity, phases and combustion, antiscia, stationary and retrograde planets...);
- Other things being equal (which they rarely are: skill and experience of the astrologer, for example), tropical works best, because the sidereal zodiac is getting more and more wrong as time goes on;
- The reverse of the last one.

If you and I both firmly believe that we've both got the right zodiac, something very mysterious is going on, and nothing needs ever change our view (nor can it so long as we persist in this belief). If, more likely, we both believe that we've got the right zodiac and just need to refine our techniques and our intuition to synthesise our observations, and that the other guy has the wrong zodiac, we have to accept that something, some evidence or some accumulation of probabilities or apparent coincidences, could show us to be wrong.
I think I'm right, but I know I could be wrong, so it's worth keeping my eyes and ears open and to know a bit about the tropical point of view. But if we both think we're both right, then we're probably both wrong.

Graham

Well said Graham!!! It is a mystery, how you may get the same or similar results with different systems . Scientifically it does not make sense to me either. I don't have the answers, if you find out, let us know. It is troubling though when you think about it though. I truly agree with every thing you said.

The "where we're coming from" remark was intended only to urge people who posted to tell the readers which zodiac, type of astrology and house system they were using. In the example chart Mars is highly dignified in Scorpio in the Tropical chart, but when a sidereal chart is used, Mars is in Libra which in a traditional western astrology is a debility. Venus would have the same sort of "problem." My point, when I wrote it, was simply an effort to make sure everyone reading understood what everyone writing had in mind.

But now I think these things are best kept separate. It is going to prove very difficult to discuss a chart when one has one set of signs on the angles and the other chart has a different set. If one of the purposes of the mystery chart is learning, this sort of thing only leads to confusion.

I've studied enough astrology to realize that slavish devotion is not good practice. I don't think much about the superiority or inferiority of one system over the other. The exception to that is my disdain for much of modern astrology. I've never worked with the sidereal zodiac or any sidereal zodiac or Indian astrology. This does not reflect a decision made after long study and much reflection, but rather deference to the idea that at my age, learning a new system, doesn't seem too productive. I stick with what I know because I know it. I don't know a great deal about Hellenistic astrology and I know next to nothing about Babylonian astrology, but I don't disrespect them and I don't disrespect sidereal or Indian astrology. There are just so many hours in a day. I'd rather develop what I know than start all over.

So my remark was a plea for clarity, not advocacy. I'm not sure if it is productive to have all kinds of zodiacs and styles of astrology in the same thread. But on the other hand I enjoy the enthusiasm everyone brings to the topic and I would hate to stifle that in any way. For now, if anyone is using something different than what is posted, just say so. Let's leave the head scratching for the chart.

interesting conversation and i like what everyone says for different reasons. i think this is why some call astrology an 'art' as opposed to a science..

tom, i think you are overly hard on 'modern' astrology, whatever that exactly means.. might the outer planets have some merit? i believe they do, but obviously it takes time to figure out just what they might mean... if you leave them off the chart, that doesn't really help the learning process along, but then i realize some are opposed to incorporating ideas different then what they want.. of course that is why i posted the mystery charts in the '''general''' section, so as not to exclude anyone from learning more on astrology, but then that is a reflection on me.. geez, i am glad we have a 'philosophy' section.. could you imagine if an astro chart wasn't allowed to have house 8, 12 or 6 cause they were '''baaaaaaaaadd'' houses? LOLOL... sorry folks - we don't allow those houses, as they were bad and we will have none of that rubbish, lol... give me enough time and i will really carry this all away...

Graham F wrote: - Both tropical and sidereal astrology work to a fair degree, a fair amount of the time, because, although using different zodiacs, many elements do not depend on the zodiac (sect, aspects without reference to rulerships, angularity, phases and combustion, antiscia, stationary and retrograde planets...);

Hi Graham, I'm curious, in what way are antiscia used in the sidereal zodiac? The whole point is that it's a tropical referencing right? A measurement of a tropically defined phenomena? Are the solstices/equinoxes plotted in a sidereal chart and the antiscia worked out from there? Or do you use 0 sidereal Cancer/Capricorn? If so, is there some other logic (perhaps the angles of the thema mundi) that sidereal astrologers use instead that does not require tropical logic?

Hi Paul
you wrote:

in what way are antiscia used in the sidereal zodiac? The whole point is that it's a tropical referencing right? A measurement of a tropically defined phenomena? Are the solstices/equinoxes plotted in a sidereal chart and the antiscia worked out from there? Or do you use 0 sidereal Cancer/Capricorn?

I thought I might get that question! It's true that they're not used much by siderealists today, but I think perhaps they were long ago, and should be again. Of course they wouldn't be from 0 sidereal Cancer/Capricorn, that would be meaningless (it's what the program Morinus does if you include them but stay in sidereal, so be warned), but from where the solstice points currently are. In practice it's easier just to cast a tropical chart to look for antiscia. Here's something Deborah Houlding says about antiscia in her article on this site:

Manilius's description [of antiscia] differs from that of Firmicus because he uses the centre of Cancer and Capricorn as his reference points, linking the sign of Gemini to Leo, Taurus to Virgo, Aries to Libra, Pisces to Scorpio, and Aquarius to Sagittarius. The obvious explanation for this shift of reference is that the use of antiscia as an astrological technique has a very long history, originating from the time when 15? Aries marked the Vernal Equinox and the middle degrees of Cancer and Capricorn corresponded with the solstices.

Graham

Graham F wrote: I thought I might get that question! It's true that they're not used much by siderealists today, but I think perhaps they were long ago, and should be again. Of course they wouldn't be from 0 sidereal Cancer/Capricorn, that would be meaningless (it's what the program Morinus does if you include them but stay in sidereal, so be warned), but from where the solstice points currently are. In practice it's easier just to cast a tropical chart to look for antiscia.

Thanks Graham, I don't use Morinus, but thanks for the heads up! I'm sure that's a bug rather than an intention of course.
I had wondered before if sidereal astrologers, in practice, actually plot the equinox or a solstice point or if they believe it has any astrological significance whatsoever (obviously not as an inception of the zodiac, but some other importance).
I was aware of the Firmicus quote but it always made me curious whether sidereal astrologers actually give it any significance or whether it is just a necessary point to calculate things like antiscia from and otherwise ignored.

I don't think it's a bug in Morinus, it's just that he (Robert??) didn't expect anyone to want to calculate them in sidereal, and it must be much more complex to program. It's already great that he included sidereal and a choice of ayanamsa, as I don't think sidereal is his thing. If he could add an offset option to personalise the ayanamsa, like in Jagannatha Hora, that would be the cherry on top... I haven't tried to use them much, but I like the concept, and suspect that primaries would be where they could be most useful.
Graham

tom,

thanks for sharing! if the trad astrologers go on a witch hunt they will probably solicit you to lead the charge, lol...

i just finished reading a thread where deb houlding mentioned 'modernist traditional' astrologers... i don't know if they are fair game too!!!

i think it is okay to have objections to the way that some practice astrology, but i don't know that lumping astrologers into these categories is all that friendly if it is going to be used to discount them in the same breath.. it strikes me like a sort of fundamentalism of the worst kind to do so.. "they are all ____" so we must oppose them" type thinking.. for anyone who has seriously taken the time to look closely at astrology, aside from it being a life long process, i think it is unfriendly to put people in categories and go on to negate them. i think we can challenge specific examples, but making generalizations with sweeping judgements on them seems over the top to me.. i have to come up with a new category just for you tom, lol.. tell me what you think of it : "fundamentalist traditional astrologer".. just joking with you here as i am hopeful being light is more enjoyable then being heavy..

Tom wrote:
John Frawley once noted the tendency of "psychological astrologers" to blame everything on our mothers and fathers. He said according to the moderns we all would have been better off being raised by wolves than by our parents.

I noted at the end of reading his 'Unreal' book that what he knew about PA would fit on the back of a postage stamp, with room to spare.

Thus the nonsense in bold if correctly attributed to him.

It looked like he tried to get some credibility back at the Carter with a few qualifications as regards his definitions, but I suspect too much damage was down for his quirky ideas to interest the serious crowd nowadays.