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 Signs
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 714
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:27 am    Post subject: Sidereal Signs Reply with quote

For anyone interested in some "down home" discussion of sidereal signs, I had forgotten about Chiria's Notebook on the Lost Zodiac web site. Chiria has a friendly chatty style of writing that's easy to read. Yes, she does often use the transfer of tropical observations to preceding sidereal signs, but explains why she's doing so. I knew Chiria years ago, and know that she was originally a tropical astrologer.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/achiria.htm
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese, I have a lot to disagree with your website. I think that a lot of what your doing is trying to transplant the tropical zodiac into the sidereal zodiac, as Chiria has done in her notebook. I have read it and I can't see where she explains why she does what she does. Either way, I don't think she could justify it. The tropical signs are warped descriptions of sidereal signs or are mixings of sidereal signs. To shoehorn sidereal signs under "tropical observations" just creates more confusion.

I also disagree that tropical observations are "observations" at all. They're really dogmas and stereotypes we are all used to hearing and having to do with actually observing people. To transplant "tropical observations" into sidereal signs is just practicing tropical astrology again with different labels.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me use some examples from Chiria's notebook, mainly Taurus and Scorpio since they, to me at least, seem to be the most obvious. Chiria describes Taurus thus:

Quote:
For some reason I have a hard time getting a grasp on how the Sun behaves in Taurus. Or why it behaves the way it does. Perhaps itís because Sun and the lord of Taurus,Venus, arenít in sync with each other, being mutual enemies in the Vedic system.

There is one thing that stands out, however, and thatís the changeability of Taurusí moods. They can go from pleasant to angry in ten seconds flat. This must go with the symbolism of the bull, an animal that can be peacefully grazing in a pasture one minute and charging a perceived enemy the next. Taurus is the exaltation of the Moon, and the Moon has always symbolized change just like the Moon's phases constantly change throughout the month.

These fluctuations may not seem in keeping with the fixity of Taurus, but if thereís one thing thatís predictable about the people born under the sign, itís that their moods canít be predicted. To me Aries seems more predictable. Why? Because itís owned by Pluto, ruler of static energy.

Taurusí Venus (as opposed to Libraís) relates to things, to aesthetics, to that which can be perceived by the senses. I know a lady with Sun and Venus in Taurus who makes beautiful quilts. Sheís also a superb gardener and cook, both traits associated with the sign. A gentleman I once knew surrounded himself with books, but having a Venus/Saturn opposition, lost out on the aesthetic sense. He was a talented linguist, however, and remember, Taurus rules the voice.


This sounds way too much like tropical Gemini. You also describe Taurus in another article as being very social and talkative. Once again, tropical Gemini.

Quote:
Taurus is feminine, solid, lying in the sunís spring tropic, full of bones, with some limbs missing, rising backwards, setting straight down. This sign lies for the most part in the invisible sky. It is calm. From its first degree to 6į (the section of the Pleiades) it is worthless, even destructive, disease-producing, thundering, causing earthquakes and lightning flashes. The next two degrees are fiery and smokey. The right part (toward Auriga) is temperate and cool. The left parts are worthless and changeable, sometimes chilling, at other times heating. The head (to 23į) is in a temperate atmosphere. [...]

This sign is productive of order, earthy, rustic, related to farming, a freedman, downward-trending, with few offspring, semi-vocal and mute, noble, invariable, energetic, unfinished, indicative of estates and
possessions. The ecliptic lies to the north, rising in line with its <Taurus> highest point. Men born under this sign are noble, energetic, toilsome, good at keeping things, pleasure-loving, music-loving, generous. Some are laborers, propagators, planters. If benefics incline toward this place or if the houseruler is favorably situated, men become priests and school superintendants, as well as those judged worthy of crowns and of the purple, of monuments and statues; also supervisors of temples and distinguished and
brilliant individuals.


This mostly describes a sign that loves art and beauty. But there is little description of being talkative, sociable, or changeable. Rhetorius describes Taurus as mute. And Valens here describes a sign that solid, strong, and unyielding, which makes sense for a fixed sign. There is little talkativeness that you describe here, although I do think your descriptions of naivety are a bit apt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another example is Scorpio.

Quote:
Being Mars ruled, Scorpio is the sign of energy. This energy is attributed to Jupiter as ruler of Sagittarius by tropical astrologers, but Jupiter is expansion, not energy. Energy may seem like expansion when someone is running all over the globe, but the truth is that Scorpio is the sign that just doesnít like to sit still. Itís the sign that loves movement and adventure.

Scorpios can be rash and impulsive. They can leap before they look, act before they think. They can be disaster prone. They can take great risks in the name of excitement and fun, in extreme cases they can be self-destructive. Itís important to teach Scorpio children self control. Remember that this sign corresponds to the eighth house of calamitous events. This is a sign that likes to have a good time. Group activities are important and a typical Scorpio likes to hang with a crowdómaybe belonging to a fraternity or sorority or some other organization where good times can be had.

Friendship is important to the Scorpio nativeóbut not so much tight one-on-one friendship as being part of a cadre of individuals who are supportive of each other. The energy of the group sustains Scorpio, and Scorpio wants to make a contribution of its own energy to the group. As it is with the other two signs in this trigon, Cancer and Pisces, the energy is volatile, not contained within. Scorpios are often into sports or other physical activities.

Venus in Scorpio is interesting because the planet and the sign arenít an easy fit. Venus is the one-on-one and Scorpio is not. Often people with that placement are very casual in their relationships. Theyíre the sort who will be an hour late when they say theyíll meet you in front of Macyís. They donít intend to be inconsiderate; they just donít place so much importance on whatís important to the other person, even though they may care deeply about that person.

Mercury in Scorpio can be blunt and tactless; theyíre not deliberately trying to be mean, they just donít think before they talk. Chances are they donít have a clue that theyíve hurt someoneís feelings, and are wondering why that person is mad at them.

For some reason the folks Iíve known with Moon in this sign tend to be rather disorganized. Clutter and messiness donít bother them; in fact, they create it. Why this is, I donít know. Moon is in its fall in Scorpio, but Moon of and by itself doesnít have a lot to do with neatness, so it remains a mystery to me why this should be. This I can promise you: you will never be bored when associating with a native of the eighth sign of the Zodiac. Just prepare to try to keep up!


This sounds like a typical description of ditzy and klutzy tropical Sagittarius. You even describe Scorpio as being teachers to "spread the word" and Chiria describes them as not arriving at Macy's on time. This is once again tropical Sagittarius obscuring the meaning of Scorpio. This has little description to what Valens writes:

Quote:
Scorpio is the house of Mars..., destructive..., unchangeable, causing a foul smell, causing also loss of one's estate... Those born are wily, wicked, rapacious, murderers, traitors, unchangeable, a cause of loss, secret plotters, thieves, perjurers, coveters of the goods of others, accessories to murders or poisonings or evil deeds, and haters of their own family.


Rhtorius writes:

Quote:
Scorpio is (feminine, nocturnal, of long ascension, fixed), autumnal, (mute, watery, rich in progeny), destructive, (descending), hunchbacked, white and leprous, inflexible, irascible, bitter, wily, adaptable... It makes people of dark complexion and dark eyes, a rugged face, curly hair, thin voice, but stout-hearted, quick movers, and disdainful.


Maternus writes this of the Scorpio ascendent but most traits can easily apply to the sun or moon sign too:

Quote:
If the Ascendant be in Scorpio, it makes men who in their youth are smart, irascible and active; but they are tamed by all kinds of misfortunes... They will be high-minded and expect the protection of the gods; and they will observe the solemn obligation of religion. They will be keen, always upheld by an unbending spirit, and will delight in ornate language. They will be such as are ever pleased with variety, and they are always becoming involved in business or danger on their friends' account... Their life will be made wearisome by toil and effort, and they will be reduced to gratitude for the protection of someone more powerful; but the native is strong and in course of time very many will flatter him, and he will transfer a great deal of his property to others... He will have many adversaries, and will be one who is compelled to venereal acts by the desire of his eyes, and is pursued by a bad reputation.


How you and Chiria arrived from Scorpio being wily and fiendish to not arriving to Macy's on time is beyond me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a lot to write, which is why I divided my contentions to a series of smaller posts rather than one giant post. There are some other things I need to mention:

According to the Egyptians at least, Taurus actually rules the genitals while Scorpio rules the throat. And while we're at genitals, why do you describe Scorpio as ruling the external genitals? What distinction are you making wit the internal genitals, and why separate them at all?

Chiria describes the 7th house as ruling death while the 8th house rules calamitous events. This is partly true. The 8th house, since antiquity, has ruled subjects like fear and death. Also it has ruled the loss of assets.

Overall, I don't think mixing tropical "observations" with the sidereal zodiac really helps at all. It just rebrands tropical signs with different names.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 382

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From reading the quotes from the "Notebook", it just appears that one has taken the particular sidereal sign and pasted over it with the qualities of the following tropical sign.

Example: "Mercury in Scorpio can be blunt and tactless..."

As soon as you use the words "blunt" and "tactless", you are conjuring Sagittarius. Mercury in Scorpio, one would expect to be obstinate, it is a fixed sign. Mercury in Scorpio will wound at will, where Sagittarius' hurtful words are not aimed at hurting, they are aimed at spreading Truth, irrespective of how the person hearing said Truth might take it.

Example: "This I can promise you: you will never be bored when associating with a native of the eighth sign of the Zodiac. Just prepare to try to keep up!"

Again, this sounds like Sagittarius. One will never be bored with the 8th sign of the zodiac (Scorpio)? Yes, of course, how could it get boring staying at home and constantly licking one's wounds? Sagittarius on the other hand has already left wherever it was that was judged boring, true to its "the grass is always greener somewhere else" philosophy.

I don't understand the efficacy of pasting the following Tropical signs' characteristics over the previous Sidereal sign? What advantage does this give?

I'm trying to see this as an analogy in mathematics...

(tropical) A: 2 + 2 = 4

(sidereal) B: 2 + 2 = 5

(tropical) A: "How can 2 + 2 = 5?"

(sidereal) B: "...by making 5 equal to 4."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean, the signs of the sidereal zodiac are different from the tropical zodiac. As I said before, the modern tropical signs are distortions of the original sidereal meanings. (The original zodiac was sidereal after all.) So while I disagree with how Therese interprets the sidereal zodiac I don't like the tropical zodiac much either. In fact, my whole contention here is that Therese is using the tropical zodiac all over again.

We could take Scorpio again. Valens writes:

Quote:
Scorpio is the house of Mars..., destructive..., unchangeable, causing a foul smell, causing also loss of one's estate... Those born are wily, wicked, rapacious, murderers, traitors, unchangeable, a cause of loss, secret plotters, thieves, perjurers, coveters of the goods of others, accessories to murders or poisonings or evil deeds, and haters of their own family.


Tropical astrologers like to claim how mysterious and deep Scorpio is and generally idealize Scorpio and put it on a pedestal. But the ancient texts don't mention profundity at all. Scorpio is simply described as wily, violent, perverse, and tricky. A powerful but negative sign.

Similarly Sagittarius has also been distorted. Valens writes:

Quote:
Sagittarius is the house of Jupiter, masculine, fiery, upward-trending, vocal, moist because of the constellation Argo, noble, winged, changeable, bicorporeal, two-natured, mysterious, with few offspring, half-finished, governing, kingly. Men born under this sign are noble, just, great-hearted,
judges, generous, loving their brothers and their friends. They lose much of their original possessions but gain them back. They are superior to their enemies, seek a noble reputation, are benefactors, prominent, and act mysteriouslyÖ


Here Sagittarius is magnanimous but mysterious. The tropical "observations" of Sagittarius being hyper-energetic, blunt and tactless etc. simply don't exist. Personally, I think that tropical Sagittarius is a very whitewashed and dumbed down combination of sidereal Scorpio and sidereal Sagittarius, but that's just me.


Last edited by Bogdan574 on Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 573

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean wrote:
Example: "Mercury in Scorpio can be blunt and tactless..."

As soon as you use the words "blunt" and "tactless", you are conjuring Sagittarius.


I'm aware we may be mixing apples and bricks here, but 'blunt' and 'tactless' sounds exactly like the result of Mercury in a Martian sign, and nothing like Mercury in a Jupiterean one.
_________________
http://esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 714
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan and Atlantean,

Thank you for your posts. I'm always happy to discuss the topic of sign characteristics as long as this can be done with the mutual respect of these who post. I've only had time to quickly scan your posts (Tuesday morning here in California), and will have to read and reply in detail later.

Of course Chiria (and myself as well) operate on the premise first suggested by Cyril Fagan (paraphrased):

The traits of the topical signs are only sidereal sign traits showing through into the tropical zodiac.

One purpose of the Lost Zodiac site is to support Cyril Fagan's premise.

The question is, "To which zodiac do these traits belong?" One sky area cannot have two completely contradictory expressions. Thus (in my opinion) Jyotish or sidereal texts that make sidereal sign traits the same as tropical sign traits of the same name are plainly and simply wrong. (And doesn't this sound like Mercury-Mars which I have in mutual reception in the sidereal zodiac? Mercury in Scorpio, Mars in Virgo; Tropical: Mars in Scorpio, Mercury in Libra)

This article is relevant to the zodiac topic. I hope you have time to read it: ("Signs of the Zodiac: What are they?) http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aharmsign.htm

I have forwarded this Skyscript link to Chiria (who is a published poet and author). She now lives in Arizona, USA. I've asked her if she would like to reply to your posts. So let's wait and see.

Thank you,
Therese
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:03 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 714
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It may be more productive to speak of zodiac signs in terms of energy rather than traits. Thus, we can look at the lives of people with stelliums in signs or perhaps Sun on the ascendant and study their lives as to how they express planetary energies. Do they lead active externalized lives affecting many other people? Do they lead solitary lives as often writers and artists are prone to do?

I'm also finding the Hellenistic triplicity lords relevant to the sidereal zodiac.
_________________
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: 714
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan574 wrote:
Quote:
I also disagree that tropical observations are "observations" at all. They're really dogmas and stereotypes we are all used to hearing and having to do with actually observing people. To transplant "tropical observations" into sidereal signs is just practicing tropical astrology again with different labels.

I completely agree that many traits accepted as belonging to zodiac signs as "observation" are only what you say they are: dogmas and stereotypes. These began with Alan Leo and Charles Carter, and developed a life of their own as astrologers copied and elaborated on these supposed traits.

That's why in this computer age with large collections of horoscopes we need to begin at ground zero for zodiac signs and study the lives of individuals who have a specific sign prominent in their birth chart. When doing this, we need to be sure the sign lord is part of say, a stellium, so the energy can't be transferred elsewhere in the chart.

Valens is a unique problem. For his sign descriptions he combines influences of stars and constellations, other traits supposedly belonging to the sign lord, often traits related to the seasons and so forth. To study Valens we almost need to take each statement individually for analysis.

Valens' sign information has obviously been gleaned from many various sources. It may be that a characteristic he lists came from the experience or belief systems of only one or two other astrologers with whom he had contact. With Valens it's impossible for us to separate theory from observation from a few hours spent in fancifully thinking. Much like astrology today actually.

I began putting together the Lost Zodiac site in the early 2000s. In recent years the translations of ancient texts have influenced my thinking, but I haven't had time to revise articles on the Lost Zodiac site. My current view is that the best way to approach signs of the zodiac is intensive study of contemporary individuals and their lives. Maybe some day a good accurate book on signs of the zodiac will be written.

However, Chiria's notes are based completely on her own observations as far as I know. She began as a tropical astrologer, but came to see sign traits in that zodiac as belonging to the sidereal zodiac.

It might be interesting to start a topic devoted entirely to what Valens wrote about signs of the zodiac.
_________________
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: 714
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was going to add a note to my previous post, but on Skyscript now the "edit" choice disappears within hours. Bogdan574, I did want to mention that Chiria and I are two different people, and sometimes you don't make that clear as when you said "How you and Chiria arrived from Scorpio being wily and fiendish to not arriving at Macy's on time..." The mention of Macy's was from Chiria's Notebook. I have my own commentary on Scorpio on the Lost Zodiac site.

Bogdan574 wrote (about sidereal Scorpio):
Quote:
This sounds like a typical description of ditzy and klutzy tropical Sagittarius...

But is Jupiter ditzy and klutzy? Generally Jupiter is prim and proper and likes to follow regulations, often being very careful about dress and protocol. Jupiter is the planet of politicians, after all. We do have a United States vice president prone to embarrassing mis-statements. Joseph Biden has the ascendant and Sun in Sidereal Scorpio. Mars can indeed by klutzy as it often rushes ahead before thinking of the next step.

Sidereal signs are all about planetary rulership and the influence of exalted planets in their signs. Plus Hellenistic triplicity lords seem to have importance for the sign trigons.

Regarding tropical Gemini/sidereal Taurus and being talkative: In different cultures there are hundreds of drawings and paintings of the Zodiacal Man. Taurus (the bull) is always placed at the throat while the Gemini twin figures are pictured sitting upon the arms. Signs as related to parts of the body have been important for astrological medical diagnosis. Would you look to Gemini for diseases of the throat and tongue?
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry there's something I don't understand. On the one hand you agree with me that tropical "observations" are dogmas and stereotypes. But on the other hand you say that the tropical traits are not only valid but are really sidereal traits all along.

I think that I'll have to disagree with Fagen here. Trying to understand the sidereal signs through tropical traits only creates more distortion because the tropical traits already are distortions themselves. I think the best thing to do is to discard the tropical zodiac entirely, along with all of the misinformation and prejudices we learned from it, and just go back the very roots of astrology.

Quote:
But is Jupiter ditzy and klutzy? Generally Jupiter is prim and proper and likes to follow regulations, often being very careful about dress and protocol. Jupiter is the planet of politicians, after all.


No I wouldn't. Tropical Sagittarius makes no sense. It doesn't work for Sagittarius. But neither does it make sense for Sidereal Scorpio either. Chiria describes Sidereal Scorpio as if she was describing Tropical Sagittarius.

Speaking of Scorpios in a thread at Soluners me and another user called jamescondor describes Scorpio people in our lives. We (james especially) described Scorpios we knew with as little theory as possible. In this thread:

http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3288

Quote:
Regarding tropical Gemini/sidereal Taurus and being talkative...


Ruling the throat =/= being talkative. Anyway, according to the Egyptians Scorpio ruled the throat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And one more thing:

Quote:
I'm also finding the Hellenistic triplicity lords relevant to the sidereal zodiac.


Understanding the planets and their influences are great, but if you only try to understand the signs through their planets you are taking a very reductionist approach and missing out on a lot of nuances in the sign's energies. That is why I think understand the mythology of the signs is very important also, because it shows the roles they play in our collective consciousness.

'The Hired Man' - Aries

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_aries.pdf

'The Bull Of Heaven' - Taurus

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_taurus.pdf

'The Great Twins' - Gemini

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_gemini.pdf

'The Crab' - Cancer

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_cancer.pdf

'The Lion' - Leo

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_leo.pdf

'The Maiden/Furrow - Virgo

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_virgo.pdf

'The Scales' - Libra

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_libra.pdf

'The Scorpion' - Scorpio

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_scorpio.pdf

'Pabilsag' - Sagittarius

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_sagittarius.pdf

'The Goatfish' - Capricorn

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_capricorn.pdf

'The Great One' - Aquarius

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_aquarius.pdf

'The Tail' - Pisces

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_pisces.pdf

Esoteric astrology is also very important I think. And the signs and many other things can be found here.

http://www.light-weaver.com/astrology/toc.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 714
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan574 wrote:
I'm sorry there's something I don't understand. On the one hand you agree with me that tropical "observations" are dogmas and stereotypes. But on the other hand you say that the tropical traits are not only valid but are really sidereal traits all along.

Signs as we know them today are a mixture of accurate observation and theory, some valid and some of little or no value. So along with accuracy we also have beliefs, dogmas and stereotypes. It's all a grand mixture at this point in time.

Quote:
I think the best thing to do is to discard the tropical zodiac entirely, along with all of the misinformation and prejudices we learned from it, and just go back the very roots of astrology.

That is one approach. I'm all for combining the accurate observations we do have with a study of planetary symbolism and ancient myth.

Quote:
Chiria describes Sidereal Scorpio as if she was describing Tropical Sagittarius.

Yes, but she has based her comments on people she knows with planetary emphasis in Sagittarius.

Quote:
We (james especially) described Scorpios we knew with as little theory as possible. In this thread:

http://www.solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3288

Oh, you're from Solunars, Jim Eshelman's site. I can check out the link.

Quote:
Ruling the throat =/= being talkative. Anyway, according to the Egyptians Scorpio ruled the throat.

According to what Cyril Fagan BELIEVED about Egyptian rulership. I think he's missed the boat there, but I don't have time to do the research needed to show he could have been wrong. Fagan went off the deep end on a few points, but nevertheless he's the father of contemporary sidereal astrology in the west.

I do have Gavin White's book. Quite excellent and a wonderful source of Mesopotamian myth. Good to see excerpts on Skyscript.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
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