skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Sidereal Astrology for the Tropical Astrologer
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3906
Location: England

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The original transmission of (Greek-language) horoscopic astrology to India in the first/second century CE was a one-way affair, or at least there is no evidence that I know of to the contrary. In the early medieval period, however, there was much more give-and-take between Indian, Persian and Arabic astrologers. So it depends on which period we are looking at. The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.


I'd go along with that, (keeping this short too). But would also add that the Hellenized astrology which flowed via trade routes from Alexandria, through Persia to India, could have had a lot more Persian influence in its origins than we realise. 8th century Arabic historians record reports of how Alexandria the Great destroyed many Persian libraries after his defeat of Darius III. Books on scientific subjects like astrology were transferred to Egypt which then went into the Alexandrian library. Those that were not translated were burned and inscriptions on stone were destroyed. For me, the area around Khurastan in Persia is greatly unappreciated for the influence it had on astrology - eastwards and westwards, and both before and after the 'Hellenistic period'. The same with Babylon and Baghdad but we are more alert to that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1134

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.


But was the influence related to the zodiac per se? Or techniques that can be used?
In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology? If so would this not have influenced both tropical and sidereal astrology in the west?

Bearing in mind what I'm trying to distance myself from is if, say, the eastern astrologers drastically altered the dignities or the humours or whatever - I do not know as I do not know enough about eastern astrology.
So that we can say, as an example "Okay in the tropical zodiac taurus is a mute sign, but in the sidereal zodiac it is an articulate sign" - in other words so that the signs themselves are focused on, not interpretive techniques that may be eastern in origin as I would have no frame of reference to compare them against and also as it wouldn't inform me the differences or evolution of the zodiac between the sidereal and tropical streams.

Keeping in mind that a background reason for wanting to know is also with Therese's opinion about the tropical zodiac changing to match precession, as well as the more basic reason, trying to understand the basic fundamentals of what the signs mean in sidereal astrology. The reason I say that is that in previous experiences when I've asked for simple definitions of what the signs symbolise or signify, sidereal astrologers have baffled me by instead discussing the importance of dashas and nakshatras. So I've struggled in the past to just get a simple idea of what the signs means so that I can compare them with tropical signs, and it seems that most of this is because of using terms familiar to vedic astrologers but which tropical astrologers might be ignorant of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1044
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
I'd go along with that, (keeping this short too). But would also add that the Hellenized astrology which flowed via trade routes from Alexandria, through Persia to India, could have had a lot more Persian influence in its origins than we realise.

I fully agree. And it's worth noting, in this forum especially, that the Persian tradition seems to have been sidereal too. Arabic texts based on Persian sources still use a sidereal year for the annual return technique, which seems to have originated in Persia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1044
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology?

No, I don't see that they did. They brought in aspects of their own culture (such as Hindu deities and the caste system), but that's a different matter. Descriptions of the signs in Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic sources are largely similar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1134

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
Paul wrote:
In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology?

No, I don't see that they did. They brought in aspects of their own culture (such as Hindu deities and the caste system), but that's a different matter. Descriptions of the signs in Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic sources are largely similar.


Right that's what I thought. So we should be able to look at hellensitic authors or even the arabic 8-9th century authors (like you say MashaAllah etc. seem to be using a sidereally defined zodiac as far as I remember) and consider their symbolism as indicative of the sidereal signs right?

This is certainly what I've always thought, with that in mind they would ultimately be the same as the latter tropically defined ones as per Lilly etc. Albeit with cultural changes as have always occurred through time, but not any major changes generally, and certainly not in line with precession?

I realise you already made the point that you do not necessarily agree with Therese's view of the tropical signs changing meaning, but I just want to be clear that my own logic for disagreeing with this idea is also sound. Certainly this has always been my understanding, namely that the sidereal signs are, for the most part, pretty much in line with the tropical ones, albeit that we should aim to remove any obvious tropical symbolism.

Of course as I said before, I think it's difficult to truly separate the two zodiacs as, at least as I see it, the two zodiacs share a common ancestor whose logic was a hybrid of tropical and sidereal considerations.

What this means is that I should be able to look to, for example, my sidereal Libra ascendant, note my ill dignified venus in aries acendant lord and make some statement about this and perhaps my appearance and health? You mentioned in the other thread that this is something you routinely do - note the character and appearance of the individual and make sure it matches the chart.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 711
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, this is as close as you'll come to an interpretation of western sidereal signs. As I said, there's no general agreement because there are too few practitioners of the western system. James A. Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer: http://www.amazon.com/new-instant-astrologer-James-Eshelman/dp/0893220140
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As I said before, the western sidereal signs never jelled. There is no standard book on their meanings. James Eshelmans' book in 1976 was the latest. But there may be a sidereal web site out there somewhere. That's why it would be helpful if a few western sidereal astrologers knew about Skyscript and kept us posted on current views.



Eshelman has his forum which may provide some useful information as regards your unique views, as you describe them, on planetary and sign meanings.

http://solunars.net/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=d9b5b163567d63c5421c9fe74881e908
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1044
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
Right that's what I thought. So we should be able to look at hellensitic authors or even the arabic 8-9th century authors (like you say MashaAllah etc. seem to be using a sidereally defined zodiac as far as I remember) and consider their symbolism as indicative of the sidereal signs right?

I think so, yes.

Quote:
This is certainly what I've always thought, with that in mind they would ultimately be the same as the latter tropically defined ones as per Lilly etc. Albeit with cultural changes as have always occurred through time, but not any major changes generally, and certainly not in line with precession?

No, not that I am aware of.

Quote:
Of course as I said before, I think it's difficult to truly separate the two zodiacs as, at least as I see it, the two zodiacs share a common ancestor whose logic was a hybrid of tropical and sidereal considerations.

Yes, I would agree with that (though I believe the sidereal parameters had conceptual priority as far as the zodiac was concerned). It is a situation not unlike the problem of house division, which is also based on different (and sometimes conflicting) parameters: primary motion versus aspectual relation to the ascendant.

Quote:
What this means is that I should be able to look to, for example, my sidereal Libra ascendant, note my ill dignified venus in aries acendant lord and make some statement about this and perhaps my appearance and health?

Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India). Wink Also, any planet in the ascendant will have a major influence and may trump Venus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 711
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
Quote:
The original transmission of (Greek-language) horoscopic astrology to India in the first/second century CE was a one-way affair, or at least there is no evidence that I know of to the contrary. In the early medieval period, however, there was much more give-and-take between Indian, Persian and Arabic astrologers. So it depends on which period we are looking at. The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.


So we might speculate or assume there is evidence that a portion of Indian thought has made its way into later Medieval astrology via the Arabic texts.

Paul, I don't believe we can discuss the sidereal zodiac to any extent without including India's astrology. Here in the United States there seems to be complete harmony between tropical and Jyotish astrologers. Many western astrologers who have learned Jyotish routinely combine the two in order to communicate more effectively with clients.

There is no discussion of seasonal differences in philosophy or tropical vs. sidereal conflict. No one cares! The medieval Renaissance of astrology seems to have taken root mainly in Europe, though Benjamin Dykes makes his home in the United States. Personally I had never given thought to the concept of the tropical zodiac being based on seasonal philosophy. I've simply studied the signs as they operate in the horoscopes of individuals.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 711
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:

Quote:
Right but you're contradicting your own (or perhaps Fagan's) logic here. On the one hand you're saying there is no real tropical zodiac, merely a sidereal zodiac and the tropical astrologers alter their meanings accordingly. But on the other hand you're actually doing the same for the sidereal signs - rewriting them to match the tropical signs.


Paul, first let's keep my quotes separate from others. As I remember, Cyril Fagan believed there was only one valid zodiac for astrology, the sidereal. I didn't personally say there was no real tropical zodiac.

Let me try again. Picture a zodiac against the constellations along the ecliptic. That zodiac never changes. It's always in the same place. Let's say that Spica defines the point between Virgo and Libra, and the point in exact opposition is Zero Aries.

Now this zodiac path is divided into equal 30 degree segments. Each segment has a specific energy. Each segment is ruled by a specific planet. This never changes. The zodiac (sidereal) is forever fixed except for very small movement over long periods of time due to the proper motion of the stars.

The measurement of the tropical signs starts to shift over centuries with the spring equinox. From Fagan's point of view, there are no tropical signs. There is only the shifting equinox against the fixed sidereal signs. There is only tropical measurement. Any perceived meaning of tropical signs is simply coming from the sidereal divisions of the zodiac.

These sign characteristics have simply not been perceived to belong to the sidereal signs. So "borrowing" from the tropical signs isn't borrowing at all. It's simply placing the sign characteristics in the proper zodiac where they have always been. These sign characteristics never moved, but can certainly be overlaid with additional attributes over time due to cultural developments.

This WAS the early western sidereal understanding of the signs. There are so very few western sidereal astrologers left that the perceptions of signs tends to be strictly individual.

I tend to believe that certain sign characteristics have always been there, "fixed" in certain ares of the ecliptic. There is an article on my web site, "What is a Sign of the Zodiac?" That article would best describe my approach to the zodiac question. I would agree with Fagan that sign characteristics for which we have evidence have always belonged to signs in the sidereal zoidac. The are not "borrowed" from tropical signs. They have simply been observed in tropical sign divisions.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 711
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
Quote:
Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India).


This is an important difference between western tropical astrology and India's astrology. The planetary falls are similar, but there are no detriments. That is, the sign opposite a planet's domicile isn't considered a debility for the planet. Here is the reasoning as I understand it: If there is a planet in another planet's domicile (say Venus in Aries), and Mars opposes Venus from Libra, that can actually be a strength because Mars is being received in its own domicile by a planet positioned there. Likewise, Mars is receiving Venus in her domicile.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 711
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:
Quote:
Eshelman has his forum which may provide some useful information as regards your unique views, as you describe them, on planetary and sign meanings.

http://solunars.net/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=d9b5b163567d63c5421c9fe74881e908


Here you go, Paul!! There's enough on this site to keep you busy for a year. Thanks for finding this web site, Nixx. I remembered that James Eshelman had a web site, but couldn't remember the title. Yes, this would be the most recent and up-to-date take on the western sidereal system, and there are many discussions on the site.

Note: I personally am not a western sidereal astrologer. I practice Jyotish with a few twists, and the views on signs on my web site are strictly my own.

I don't know how much agreement Ken Bowser would have with Jim Eshleman.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1134

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:

Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India). Wink Also, any planet in the ascendant will have a major influence and may trump Venus.


Of course, the whole chart needs taking into consideration, this wasn't meant as a trick question in the style of "aha that doesn't fit me therefore sidereal signs suck!" or anything like that. More just about making sure that I should be able to interpret my chart using the same methods I might interpret it from a traditional tropical perspective, but just precess my signs.

Also I was under the impression, if we go back to our traditional sources, that detriment was one of the most essentially debilitating a planet could be. In my own chart Venus is also cadent from the descendant by about 8 degrees, but there's about 5-10 mins leeway on my birthtime and I've always considered it angular.

It's interesting cos it pushes my well dignified Venus in Taurus into an ill dignified Venus in Aries.

What's useful to take away from this is, if I go by what you're saying, I should be able to interpret my own chart (or others) using the methods I'm familiar with with just precessed signs - so not have to 'relearn' what the signs mean.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1134

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Paul, this is as close as you'll come to an interpretation of western sidereal signs. As I said, there's no general agreement because there are too few practitioners of the western system. James A. Eshelman's The New Instant Astrologer: http://www.amazon.com/new-instant-astrologer-James-Eshelman/dp/0893220140


Thanks. I wonder how much his astrology has been shaped and influenced by Thelema though.
Also I note that he too says "The Tropical zodiac is a fiction. It simply doesn’t exist, except in the minds of its proponents."

Therese Hamilton wrote:

This is an important difference between western tropical astrology and India's astrology. The planetary falls are similar, but there are no detriments. That is, the sign opposite a planet's domicile isn't considered a debility for the planet. Here is the reasoning as I understand it: If there is a planet in another planet's domicile (say Venus in Aries), and Mars opposes Venus from Libra, that can actually be a strength because Mars is being received in its own domicile by a planet positioned there. Likewise, Mars is receiving Venus in her domicile.


Right but you're describing mutual reception here which is a boon in western tropical astrology as well. Obviously if a planet is received that's a good thing, and if mutually received even better.
But do the Indian astrology take Mars in Libra, without reception for example, as being a debility like we do in western tropical astrology?

Quote:
Let me try again. Picture a zodiac against the constellations along the ecliptic. That zodiac never changes. It's always in the same place. Let's say that Spica defines the point between Virgo and Libra, and the point in exact opposition is Zero Aries.


Neither zodiac changes. The tropical zodiac also neither changes. This is somewhat meaningless when you think of it. What you're saying is that it will not change in relation to itself. The same is true for tropical astrology. In relation to itself, the tropical zodiac also will not change. The only thing that changes is the relationship between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. As for which one is 'changing' that depends on the observer. If you're observing from a fixed star, then it is the equinoxes which change. If you are observing from the earth, then it is the sidereal backdrop which changes. But neither change in relation to themselves, they only change in relation to something else. So when you say "The measurement of the tropical signs starts to shift over centuries with the spring equinox. " what you mean is that the tropical signs shift in relation to the sidereal zodiac. Another way of putting this would be to say that the sidereal signs shift in relation to the tropical zodiac.

Quote:
These sign characteristics have simply not been perceived to belong to the sidereal signs. So "borrowing" from the tropical signs isn't borrowing at all. It's simply placing the sign characteristics in the proper zodiac where they have always been.


But the huge problem with this logic is that it's actually not 'always been' that way. In other words we never have Taurus described as articulate and excitable and animated talkativeness like you describe on your website. If it's "always been" that way then we can look back to the hellenistic authors and read about Taurus and see that that's how it's described. But when we do we do not see that, instead, as I quoted, we actually see Taurus described as mute instead! Therefore it would seem the idea that it's not borrowing from the tropical seems intellectually dishonest. It absolutely is borrowing from the tropical signs because at the time when the signs were aligned we do not see those attributions associated with Taurus. This is why I wanted to examine the issue with reference to the hellensitic astrologers as they're writing in a time when the zodiacs were aligned, so we can see any changes by simply comparing against them.

Quote:
This WAS the early western sidereal understanding of the signs.


What do you mean be early? Do you mean from Fagan's era onwards? Or do you mean the hellenistic astrologers?

Quote:
I would agree with Fagan that sign characteristics for which we have evidence have always belonged to signs in the sidereal zoidac. The are not "borrowed" from tropical signs. They have simply been observed in tropical sign divisions.


Right, so as I had said earlier, you believe that the only 'true' zodiac is the sidereal one, and that the tropical zodiac is simply mislaid and is secretly the sidereal zodiac often to the ignorance of tropical astrologers. That's what this viewpoint actually means. You're saying that the characteristics belong to the sidereal zodiac and tropical astrologers simply noted them and didn't realise they were sidereal in origin. That means the tropical zodiac is incorrect and is actually sidereal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1044
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
So we might speculate or assume there is evidence that a portion of Indian thought has made its way into later Medieval astrology via the Arabic texts.

Oh, it definitely has -- but not necessarily in a way that is strictly relevant to the topic of this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated