Astrological Musings

[nestentrie]

This is an interesting site: http://www.constellationsofwords.com/

[GrandmasterP]

No. It is water bearer so tricksy for people, but air element. I have Aquarius Ascendant.

Seldom a day goes by but I don't learn something new from TTB.

Thanks for that heads up Zanshin and Nungali.

Edited August 13, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Nungali]

This is an interesting site: http://www.constellationsofwords.com/

 

That site X http://www.astro.com/ ( @ 'extended chart selection' ) =

 

Great resources !

Edited August 14, 2014 by Nungali

[Horus]

Great charting here too http://www.universal-tao.com/free-taoist-astrology.html

[Horus]

 

 

Hmm

 

Ha!

 

As long as its not:

[Nungali]

Ha!

 

As long as its not:

 

Ah ... the icon of modern man ... but maybe change that match flame to ;

 

[eye_of_the_storm]

Govs (Banks) anyway...

Edited August 14, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Or 2nd scenario... preferable (empowerment)

[eye_of_the_storm]

Funny no Taurians as yet...

I know a few, most have no interest in metaphysical stuff

[eye_of_the_storm]

Tally @ 19 votes

Air ~ 6
Water ~ 6
Fire ~ 5
Earth ~ 2

[Nungali]

Funny no Taurians as yet...

 

I know a few, most have no interest in metaphysical stuff

 

If someone says to you 'I dont believe in astrology.' Then say "Oh, you must be a Taurus." ... It doesnt work everytime, but seems to more often than not ... and then they ...

[eye_of_the_storm]

.

Edited August 14, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[GrandmasterP]

I still reckon that water signs would predominate if every Bum voted.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Tally @ 23 votes

Fire ~ 8
Air ~ 7
Water ~ 6
Earth ~ 2

[Michael Sternbach]

Ooh! Mine GOTT! !

 

Someone who considers astronomy in the 'old' way ... the actual physical relationship between the planets and stars as viewed from earth !

 

Excuse me .... I am in astrological shock ... I need to go and sit down for a bit . (I have had the "best and most popular professional astrologer" / s in the world (according to them) affirm over and over that astrology "has noting to do with the stars, never did ... and never will have ! " ( yep, I am totally serious here ! ) so... sorry if I seem a bit sarcastic.

 

 

 

It's not quite correct to say that the stars have nothing to do with astrology. This is a somewhat complex topic, though. In brief:

• The zodiac basically coincides with the ecliptic (the annual course of the Sun). The 12-fold division was likely inspired by the Moon forming twelve conjunctions (new moons) in most years - hence the time periods we call months. The year started with the vernal equinox which was set at 0° Aries in Hellenistic astrology. The constellations that were roughly congruent with the signs were used for marking and naming them. At that time there wasn't really any difference between the tropical zodiac based on the seasons and the sidereal zodiac based on the constellations.
• Due to precession, the constellations were increasingly offset over time. This is when two schools of thinking developed: One of them saw the seasonal division as authoritative; this is what most (but not all) western astrologers use as their foundation up to the present day, and insofar the quote above got it right. The other school was clinging to the sidereal zodiac; in line with this, e.g. what once was an Aries Sun would most often be a Pisces Sun today. This is what Indian astrology is based on - even though not all Indian/Vedic astrologers agree on how big exactly this offset should be.
• To make things more complicated, the constellations (unlike the signs, tropical or sidereal) are not dividing the ecliptic into neat 30° segments. Some of them are considerably longer or shorter; there are overlaps as well as gaps; the constellation Ophiuchus has one of his feet on the zodiac; etc. So only very few astrologers have ever been using the constellational zodiac as such.

However, individual fixed stars were indeed an important consideration in classical astrology, and some modern astrologers are using them as well. I, for one, do consider them in any in-depth delineation; they are very significant especially when they are forming conjunctions with planets and Angles. This makes sense because astrology has the Hermetic axiom "as above, so below" at its core, so everything "up there" in the sky potentially has meaning "down here" on Earth.

[Nungali]

It's not quite correct to say that the stars have nothing to do with astrology.

 

Let alone; 'never did and never will'.

 

 

This is a somewhat complex topic, though. In brief:

• The zodiac basically coincides with the ecliptic (the annual course of the Sun). The 12-fold division was likely inspired by the Moon forming twelve conjunctions (new moons) in most years - hence the time periods we call months. The year started with the vernal equinox which was set at 0° Aries in Hellenistic astrology. The constellations that were roughly congruent with the signs were used for marking and naming them. At that time there wasn't really any difference between the tropical zodiac based on the seasons and the sidereal zodiac based on the constellations.

 

Check out the astronomical map around the time the first ephemeris were calculated and printed .... looks a bit like a 'natural Horoscope' ... hmmm? Then, the E.P just happened to be around the 'start' of Aries .... IMO it is highly debatable that "The constellations that were roughly congruent with the signs " Vs the signs were constructs to frame the constellations.

 

This was also poo-pooed by the astrology experts and told there was no correlation.

 

My response? ' So its just co-incidence that the signs have the same name and order as the constellations then?

 

Answer: < koff , splutter, > No they dont ...the sign is called Scorpio and the constellation is called Scorpius

 

There was no difference then, you are right . Why should there be a difference now.

 

IMO it is like someone has labelled a spectrum cast on to a sheet of paper with colour names written on the paper ... the light has moved along a bit and instead of moving the labels ... we have insisted that blue is now called green and so on.

 

The really weird thing is that the old modern western Tropic Ephemeris used to have a small para at the the bottom of the first intro page noting the precession and what they current conversion degrees where.

 

Now that has disappeared (perhaps as no one noticed it or used it ? ) .

 

IF tropical astrology is a valid calculation of natal types (based on equal 30 degree segments of the ecliptic set at the E.P. ) then there should be an inversion in stats between the northern and southern hemispheres ... another thing these astrologers refused to even look at or discuss - except for one who had research underway ... that the others didnt want ti read or contribute to.

 

 

• Due to precession, the constellations were increasingly offset over time. This is when two schools of thinking developed: One of them saw the seasonal division as authoritative; this is what most (but not all) western astrologers use as their foundation up to the present day, and insofar the quote above got it right. The other school was clinging to the sidereal zodiac; in line with this, e.g. what once was an Aries Sun would most often be a Pisces Sun today. This is what Indian astrology is based on - even though not all Indian/Vedic astrologers agree on how big exactly this offset should be.

 

Well there are different ways of working the system out . Tropical even 12 divisions based on 'fixed' E.P. do have calculating advantages ... but the northern southern hemisphere thing ??? But there are other systems ... just need to set it at a star on or near the ecliptic ... the Golden Dawn used Regulus in Leo as their starting point ... there are others.

 

 

 

• To make things more complicated, the constellations (unlike the signs, tropical or sidereal) are not dividing the ecliptic into neat 30° segments. Some of them are considerably longer or shorter; there are overlaps as well as gaps; the constellation Ophiuchus has one of his feet on the zodiac; etc. So only very few astrologers have ever been using the constellational zodiac as such.

 

It can be worked out taking mutilations into account ... the Sun is in the present astronomical constellation of Scorpio for only a few days, but in Libra for many more .... yet Scorpio's ... sorry ... Scorpius' lost the ends of his claws to Libra ... I mean just look at it in the sky ... you can see those stars make up a scorpion shape better when included.

 

" For some centuries before the Christian era it was the largest of the zodiac figures, forming with the Khelai, its Claws, — the prosectae chelae of Cicero, now our Libra, — a double constellation "

 

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Constellations/Scorpio.html

 

It might be more correct to say that traditional astrologers should not use modern astronomical constellation boundaries (which in some cases are irrelevant to the asterisms ....

 

I mean ... who is going to follow a boundary like :

 

 

Is Alpheratz part of the constellation of Pegasus or the asterism of Andromeda ?

 

However, individual fixed stars were indeed an important consideration in classical astrology, and some modern astrologers are using them as well.

 

The site that the experts said that stuff to me on a few years ago now has accepted that type of astrology and has posts about it that dont get illogically attacked now.

 

I, for one, do consider them in any in-depth delineation; they are very significant especially when they are forming conjunctions with planets and Angles. This makes sense because astrology has the Hermetic axiom "as above, so below" at its core, so everything "up there" in the sky potentially has meaning "down here" on Earth.

 

It makes more than sense for me ... especially when tribal law here sees (for example) the traits of the asterism we know as Scorpio in the same way western astrology does .... even though there has been absolutely no contact between the two cultures when those associations were formed (and in different hemispheres ) !

Edited August 16, 2014 by Nungali

[eye_of_the_storm]

no contact between the two cultures when those associations were formed (and in different hemispheres ) !

 

??

[Michael Sternbach]

Check out the astronomical map around the time the first ephemeris were calculated and printed .... looks a bit like a 'natural Horoscope' ... hmmm? Then, the E.P just happened to be around the 'start' of Aries .... IMO it is highly debatable that "The constellations that were roughly congruent with the signs " Vs the signs were constructs to frame the constellations.

 

This was also poo-pooed by the astrology experts and told there was no correlation.

 

My response? ' So its just co-incidence that the signs have the same name and order as the constellations then?

It's true, however, that the constellations pre-date the signs, for all we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_star_catalogues#Zodiacal_constellations

Answer: < koff , splutter, > No they dont ...the sign is called Scorpio and the constellation is called Scorpius

 

There was no difference then, you are right . Why should there be a difference now.

 

IMO it is like someone has labelled a spectrum cast on to a sheet of paper with colour names written on the paper ... the light has moved along a bit and instead of moving the labels ... we have insisted that blue is now called green and so on.

But the question remains: Which part is to be seen as the colours, which one as the labels? Also, there could be two different spectra at once (on two different frequency bands), coinciding only every 26'000 years; which one you would astrologically perceive nowadays depends on what you are "tuned into." I'm not suggesting that all the Indian astrologers got it wrong - their system seems to work for them. All I can say with certainty is that the tropical zodiac surely works well for me - as well as for most other Western astrologers.

 

The really weird thing is that the old modern western Tropic Ephemeris used to have a small para at the the bottom of the first intro page noting the precession and what they current conversion degrees where.

 

Now that has disappeared (perhaps as no one noticed it or used it ? ) .

I have never heard of such an ephemeris before. Already the "father" of Western astrology, Ptolemy, was clearly opting for the Tropical zodiac, and so were all his successors. If you introduce a correction to account for precession (ayanamsa in Vedic astrology), you are no longer using Tropical. (Possibly what you saw was an addition for the sake of Vedic-style practitioner?)

IF tropical astrology is a valid calculation of natal types (based on equal 30 degree segments of the ecliptic set at the E.P. ) then there should be an inversion in stats between the northern and southern hemispheres ... another thing these astrologers refused to even look at or discuss - except for one who had research underway ... that the others didnt want ti read or contribute to.

Not so. A few months ago, I was participating in a long thread about this topic on the astrology forum Skyscript. It became clear that South-American and Australian astrologers are generally quite satisfied with the Tropical zodiac the way we know it. It seems to be valid for the whole globe.

 

My personal thought is that the equinoxes and solstices are really the pivots the zodiac hinges on, no matter which seasons they are marking. Compare this with the wheel of the houses. Most modern astrologers see the latter as reflecting the zodiac on yet another level. The ASC or 1st house cusp along with the DESC (7th house cusp) mark the line between what is above the horizon and therefore visible, and what is below and invisible, right? The upper and the lower hemisphere are also called diurnal and nocturnal, respectively (depending on where the Sun is, a chart will be considered either diurnal or nocturnal).

 

To me, this is analogous (in principle) to the Sun being either in the zodiacal half in which day prevails (on the Northern hemisphere,that's Aries to Virgo, including) or night prevails (Libra to Pisces, including). But notice that, e.g., the houses 1-6 are constituting the nocturnal hemisphere, whereas their corresponding signs - Aries to Virgo - belong to the zodiacal half in which day is prevalent! (That is, only on the Northern hemisphere!)

 

The way I read all this: The equinoxes/solstices and the analogous angles (ASC-DESC/IC-MC axis), respectively, are the basic markers for the two wheels - notwithstanding in which direction things are moving.

 

In any case, the relationship between the Earth and the Sun as expressed in his annual and diurnal motions is what astrology is based on, in most fundamental terms.

Well there are different ways of working the system out . Tropical even 12 divisions based on 'fixed' E.P. do have calculating advantages ... but the northern southern hemisphere thing ??? But there are other systems ... just need to set it at a star on or near the ecliptic ... the Golden Dawn used Regulus in Leo as their starting point ... there are others.

Do you happen to have a reference for Regulus as the beginning of the zodiac? I remember once suggesting something similar or identical to Sidereal astrologers (just as a Gedankenexperiment) - and they were not happy with it at all! - By the way, there is also a Sidereal zodiac setting 0° Sagittarius at the Galactic Centre, besides other ideas,

It can be worked out taking mutilations into account ... the Sun is in the present astronomical constellation of Scorpio for only a few days, but in Libra for many more .... yet Scorpio's ... sorry ... Scorpius' lost the ends of his claws to Libra ... I mean just look at it in the sky ... you can see those stars make up a scorpion shape better when included.

 

" For some centuries before the Christian era it was the largest of the zodiac figures, forming with the Khelai, its Claws, — the prosectae chelae of Cicero, now our Libra, — a double constellation "

 

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Constellations/Scorpio.html

In still older Babylonian astrology, Libra was known as both "the scales" and "the claws of Scorpio" as far as I was able to ascertain from Internet sources.

It might be more correct to say that traditional astrologers should not use modern astronomical constellation boundaries (which in some cases are irrelevant to the asterisms ....

 

I mean ... who is going to follow a boundary like :

 

 

Is Alpheratz part of the constellation of Pegasus or the asterism of Andromeda ?

 

 

The site that the experts said that stuff to me on a few years ago now has accepted that type of astrology and has posts about it that dont get illogically attacked now.

Astrology's framework is an expression of sacred geometry, in my understanding. Astrologers (Western or else) using the irregular constellations as background to the planets etc are rare and far between. I'm not saying that it cannot possibly give meaningful results, but it presupposes an context quite different from what is generally known as astrology.

It makes more than sense for me ... especially when tribal law here sees (for example) the traits of the asterism we know as Scorpio in the same way western astrology does .... even though there has been absolutely no contact between the two cultures when those associations were formed (and in different hemispheres ) !

Not sure what you are talking about here...

[Nungali]

It's true, however, that the constellations pre-date the signs, for all we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_star_catalogues#Zodiacal_constellations

 

But the question remains: Which part is to be seen as the colours, which one as the labels? Also, there could be two different spectra at once (on two different frequency bands), coinciding only every 26'000 years; which one you would astrologically perceive nowadays depends on what you are "tuned into." I'm not suggesting that all the Indian astrologers got it wrong - their system seems to work for them. All I can say with certainty is that the tropical zodiac surely works well for me - as well as for most other Western astrologers.

 

I use tropical for some things and sidereal for other things; often my label (or the one stuck on me) isnt my true colour.

 

There are western tropical sidereal systems - as you probably know , some are based on the Vedic ... I have tried applying them some different ways.

 

 

I have never heard of such an ephemeris before.

It was a standard ephemeris that my astrologer friend had, the note was two lines at the bottom of an intro page. ... I have tried to get it after she got a new one, she thinks she chucked it but it was her that pointed it out to me.

 

Already the "father" of Western astrology, Ptolemy, was clearly opting for the Tropical zodiac, and so were all his successors. If you introduce a correction to account for precession (ayanamsa in Vedic astrology), you are no longer using Tropical. (Possibly what you saw was an addition for the sake of Vedic-style practitioner?)

 

That is right I am seeing a distinction, it is not tropical.

 

Not so. A few months ago, I was participating in a long thread about this topic on the astrology forum Skyscript. It became clear that South-American and Australian astrologers are generally quite satisfied with the Tropical zodiac the way we know it. It seems to be valid for the whole globe.

 

My personal thought is that the equinoxes and solstices are really the pivots the zodiac hinges on, no matter which seasons they are marking. Compare this with the wheel of the houses. Most modern astrologers see the latter as reflecting the zodiac on yet another level. The ASC or 1st house cusp along with the DESC (7th house cusp) mark the line between what is above the horizon and therefore visible, and what is below and invisible, right? The upper and the lower hemisphere are also called diurnal and nocturnal, respectively (depending on where the Sun is, a chart will be considered either diurnal or nocturnal).

 

To me, this is analogous (in principle) to the Sun being either in the zodiacal half in which day prevails (on the Northern hemisphere,that's Aries to Virgo, including) or night prevails (Libra to Pisces, including). But notice that, e.g., the houses 1-6 are constituting the nocturnal hemisphere, whereas their corresponding signs - Aries to Virgo - belong to the zodiacal half in which day is prevalent! (That is, only on the Northern hemisphere!)

 

The way I read all this: The equinoxes/solstices and the analogous angles (ASC-DESC/IC-MC axis), respectively, are the basic markers for the two wheels - notwithstanding in which direction things are moving.

 

That all makes sense to me . Thanks for that. It may well explain the 'dilemma' which, actually, was looking at the N and S hemisphere dynamic as more of a seasonal thing.

 

 

In any case, the relationship between the Earth and the Sun as expressed in his annual and diurnal motions is what astrology is based on, in most fundamental terms.

Do you happen to have a reference for Regulus as the beginning of the zodiac?

 

The Golden Dawn used it. Its in the relevant G.D. Papers. ; Book T - The Tarot (showing attributions to its zodiac - including constellations off the zodiacal ecliptic), 'The Tree of Life as Projected in a Solid Sphere.' ; " ... the teaching assigns the commencing Point of the Zodiac to the bright star 'Regulus' which is in Leo. And it measures Right Ascension and Longitude from that point ... " [ para 2 ]

 

( Leo seems a good choice mystically as well , it is a Solar order with a Solar focus ... and Heliocentric ) .

 

 

 

I remember once suggesting something similar or identical to Sidereal astrologers (just as a Gedankenexperiment) - and they were not happy with it at all! - By the way, there is also a Sidereal zodiac setting 0° Sagittarius at the Galactic Centre, besides other ideas,

 

One could use Spica as well.

 

In still older Babylonian astrology, Libra was known as both "the scales" and "the claws of Scorpio" as far as I was able to ascertain from Internet sources.

 

Its fluid over time and place.

 

Astrology's framework is an expression of sacred geometry, in my understanding. Astrologers (Western or else) using the irregular constellations as background to the planets etc are rare and far between.

 

Yes, a system is needed to frame them if one is going to use them. If you mean 'irregular' going on the patterns of the lines on a modern astronomical map, yes. If you mean irregular as in off the ecliptic, rare but known (GD one example) , if you mean irregular as in using the asterism instead of a star - the same, one example of useage is in Biodynamic agriculture . Using the stars off the ecliptic or within the zodiac is a long used practice.

 

I'm not saying that it cannot possibly give meaningful results, but it presupposes an context quite different from what is generally known as astrology.

 

And from what the modern common conceps of astrology knows about. I suppose my approach is also from an anthropological perspective.

 

Not sure what you are talking about here...

That some Aboriginal groups have myths about asterisms told in stories - in this case the stars we know as Scorpio - and the elements in those stories describe the things, traits and processes that many ascribe to Scorpio.

 

- I am running off memory here ... but, in essence ( and it may lack the appropriate 'cultural impact' * )

 

There was a young boy that had an older and very cheeky girl friend, she was a bit of a trouble maker. The old men told her to go away and leave him alone, it was time for the boys initiation into manhood. So they took him and the boys aside but the bad girl followed them to the Men's initiation ritual and hid and watched the ceremony and the circumcision ...

 

(* cultural impact ... this is more than outrageous and would warrant instant death)

 

When the men left and the boys had to stay in the circle, she waited until they fell asleep and sneaked into the circle and woke him up and wanted to know what they did to him and made him show her .

 

Becoming fascinated with the injury (it turned her on) she wanted to have sex with him with the freshly circumcised member

 

(okay its constant shocked faces in the firelight all round from now on )

 

She forced him into her and the boy screamed out with pain - awakening the guardians- they ran to the circle and saw them, the girl and boy saw them and wanted to run, but now his member had swollen inside her from the injury and they were stuck together. So she picked up the boy and he hung on around her neck and she put his legs around her waist and ran off carrying him with the men in pursuit.

 

She ran far across the desert stuck together with the boy ... to the horizon and up into the sky to get away, the men followed and threw a boomerang and throwing stick at her and .....

 

(as often happens in these stories) < freeze frame>

 

 

There they are still up there ( here they indicate the stars of Scorpio in the night sky ) the boy and girl are the two lead stars, back further are the boomerang and throwing stick and behind the men chasing them.

 

So we have , in order ; suspect sex, a bit of a trouble maker, men's business, initiation, secrecy, spying, breaking of taboos, illicit , even sado-masochistic sex, crime and punishment and a journey that ends in flight (like the Scorpio totem of the eagle ... actually keeping the Law is eagle / Mars 'business' too) . I sorta relate that to a Scorpionic story .

 

Just as matter of interest: here is a great pic demonstrating some Astro/Aboriginal rock art ( as an example of a seasonal use of the stars - to do with the right time to gather emu eggs) as opposed to the other 'psychological' useage.

 

 

General reference:

 

There is even an entry in Wiki about it ... but it only relates to the more generally known stories:

 

" The Pleiades also figures in the Dreamings of several language groups. For example, in the central desert region, they are said to be seven sisters fleeing from the unwelcome attentions of a man represented by some of the stars in Orion. The close resemblance of this to Greek mythology is believed to be coincidental - there is no evidence of any cultural connection."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_astronomy

Edited August 17, 2014 by Nungali

[Zhongyongdaoist]

In my original post here:

 

Western astrology uses the Tropical Moving star system to draw up its charts. This is based on the movement of the equinoxes and the Western Tropical position is now approximately 24 degrees away from the Vedic Fixed star accurate position. The Western system is continuing to move away from the fixed (accurate) position of stars. This means that charts drawn up in the two systems vary by nearly 24 degrees at present and this gap is growing larger yearly. This means that someone with a Sun in the first half of Aries according to Western astrology has a Sun in Pisces in the Vedic system. This produces a totally different chart if this is applied to all points in the chart. The Vedic chart shows the accurate position of planets.

The above quote is rather bias to say the least. Originally I was going to quote from some of my earlier posts on the Tao Bums, but doing a little more online research I found this long, but well reasoned and informative article:

Vedic Astrology - critically examined

It is well worth the read and the author's astrological and academic credentials are above reproach:

Dieter Koch

I made the mistake of not posting some of my previous posts on this subject, such as this:

As for Western signs being off by 23 degrees, this is a difference that arises between what is usually called the Tropical and the Sidereal Zodiacs. Western Astrology is based on the Tropical Zodiac which is defined by the relation between the Earth's equator and the ecliptic. The ecliptic is defined by the tilt of the Earth's axis and is what determines the season. The ecliptic is the Sun's apparent path during the year. Spring begins in the Northern Hemisphere when the sun passes over the Earth's equator going from the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern one. This exact day is called the Vernal Equinox because the day and night are of equal duration, and is the beginning of the sign of Aries in the Western or Tropical Zodiac. Thus the Western Zodiac is based on fundamental relations of space and time which determine the seasons and also the cycle of eclipses, which, by the way, is why the ecliptic is called the ecliptic. Whenever the sun and moon are both "on the ecliptic", new or full moons are eclipses.

Seems like a long time ago someone noticed that the bright star Spica was setting at sunrise around the Vernal Equinox. So the setting of the Spica became a marker of the beginning of Spring. That pesky precession of the Equinoxes changed all that though and now the setting of Spica no longer corresponds to the Vernal Equinox. Oh well, things change I guess. However, the opposite point to Spica is the beginning of the ancient Indian Mansion's of the Moon and thus the Indian Sidereal Zodiac. So the question is, what is more important, that Spica happened to be setting on the Vernal Equinox for a couple of Centuries two thousand or so years ago or a basic pattern derived from the relation between the Sun and the Earth that determines the seasons?

. . ..

By the way there is a common misconception that Western Astrologers were ignorant of the precession of the Equinoxes and the Sidereal Zodiac. Far from it, both were known from Hellenistic times. The precession of the Equinoxes was termed the motion of the eighth Sphere and is mentioned in the Middle Ages in Sacrobosco's De Sphaera, the standard astronomical text from the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries. Agrippa mentions the motion of the Eighth Sphere in both his Vanity of Arts and Sciences and in his Occult Philosophy, where he mentions the difference between the two Zodiacs and says that for purposes of working with the Arabic Lunar Mansions in magic it is preferable to use the Sidereal Zodiac. Somewhere between the Seventeenth and Nineteenth Centuries, the Precession and the Sidereal Zodiac where lost to Western astrologers, but in terms of astrological practice it wasn't much of a loss. The Sidereal Zodiac was reintroduced to Western Astrology by Cyril Fagan in the mid Twentieth Century and has enjoyed a certain vogue among people who think it is more "scientific", of course a modern astronomer is going to consider either zodiac laughable and the notion that any astrology could be "scientific", ridiculous.

As a final note, I will mention that the oldest surviving work in Sanskrit dealing with astrology is called the Yavanajataka and is an account of Western Hellenistic Astrology, yavana being Sanskrit for the Greeks, and is the practical basis for all subsequent Indian astrology. The only native aspect that survives is the Nakshatra's or Mansions of the Moon. which probably explains why the Indians astrologers continued to uses the Sidereal Zodiac long after astronomy had left them behind. (Emphasis in second paragraph added, ZYD)

or this:

Well, onto the precession of the equinoxes. The precession of the equinoxes was known antiquity and was referred to as the motion of the eighth sphere. In the 2nd Century C.E. Claudius Ptolemy more or less summarized and finalized the cosmological thought of the previous 500 years in a book called the Almagest in which each of the seven know 'planets' from the Moon through Saturn were given a different 'sphere' for their motion, these were the first seven spheres and the eighth sphere was given to what were called the fixed stars, because they seemed at that time to have no individual motion of their own, but the totality of the fixed stars did have a motion and this motion, which Ptolemy thought to be a degree for a century (the actual motion is less than this), is what is responsible for the precession of the equinoxes.

Ptolemy also wrote what become the authoritative text on Astrology, the Tetrabiblios, or Four Books. In this book Ptolemy specifically says that the beginning of the Zodiac, 0 degrees of Aries, is the Vernal Equinox, the day that the Sun crossed the equator on its journey north (I will return to this later). Centuries later a discussion of the motion of the eighth sphere is given in Johannes de Sacrobosco's De Sphaero, which while written in the 13th Century became the standard textbook of astronomy through the Renaissance and into the 17th Century. During this period there was no difference between astrologers and astronomers, so astrologers knew of the motion of the eighth sphere in the middle ages. In his book The Secret Zodiac Fred Gettings explores the Zodiac symbolism of a Medieval church and comes to the conclusion that the architects knew about both the signs and constellations and used different technical terms for the sign and constellation. Cornelius Agrippa mentions the motion of the eighth sphere in both his Three Books on Occult Philosophy and in The Vanity and Uncertainty of Arts and Sciences. So there was an awareness of the precession of the equinoxes from Antiquity through the Renaissance.

One of the interesting things that I remember is that someone in the late Hellenistic period proposed it was part of a cycle in which the fixed stars would move first one way and then would reverse its direction until the equinox was back where it at 0 degrees of the constellation Aries. It obviously hasn't, at least not yet, but i always thought this was an interesting speculation which might have been inspired by one of Plato's 'stories' in his dialogue The Statesman, which involves a periodic reversal of the flow of time. This motion was called 'trepidation' and in the 9th Century Arab astrologer/astronomer proposed that it might be cyclic on a shorter scale and not completely return to 0 degrees Aries until it had gone all the way around the fixed stars to return to its beginning at 0 degrees Aries. This theory was apparently very influential during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Issac Newton put an end to the motion of the eighth sphere and explained the precession as the result of long term changes in the earth's rotation.

. . .

The revival of 'Sidereal' astrology in the West during the Twentieth Century is largely inspired by Indian astrology and its advocates being ignorant of the history Western astrology have promulgated the myth that Western astrology was ignorant of the precession out of their own ignorance.

These have now been added so that general readers here will realize that if I recommend an article, such as this:

Vedic Astrology - critically examined

It is because I know a fair amount about the subject and think that the recommended article has much to offer. I am emphasizing this because it doesn't look to me like anyone followed the original link and read the article. In my own case, after reading the above article, I now know that the material which I bolded in the first quote above:

Seems like a long time ago someone noticed that the bright star Spica was setting at sunrise around the Vernal Equinox. So the setting of the Spica became a marker of the beginning of Spring. That pesky precession of the Equinoxes changed all that though and now the setting of Spica no longer corresponds to the Vernal Equinox. Oh well, things change I guess. However, the opposite point to Spica is the beginning of the ancient Indian Mansion's of the Moon and thus the Indian Sidereal Zodiac.

is misleading and if you want to know how and in what way you should read the article. My strong point is the history of Western Astrology, as the above quotes from my posts makes clear, but based on the article I would now have to say that the use of Aries to begin the Indian Lunar Mansions is a relatively late practice and not based on the oldest Indian scriptural authority, as I thought it might be:

. . . in Vedic texts, lists of the lunar mansions always start with Kṛttikā, which corresponds to the Pleiades in sidereal Taurus. Besides, Kṛttikā is the most often mentioned lunar mansion in the Vedas, whereas Aśvinī hardly ever appears. The reason for this prominence of Kṛttikā in the Vedas lies in the fact that, in ancient times, approximately from 2500 BC on, the vernal equinox was located in this lunar motion (Sic, read mansion, ZYD). In astronomical and astrological texts of Late Antiquity, the lunar mansion Aśvinī (and Aries) became the starting point of the ecliptic, and the reason was, again, that the vernal equinox by that time had moved on into this lunar mansion. (section, “Vedic” Astrology and the Vedas, Vedic Astrology - critically examined)

So, zero degrees Aries as the beginning point of the Lunar Mansions and thus the Sidereal Zodiac was chosen much later then the Vedic scriptures, in point of fact after the introduction of Hellenistic Astrology to India. Details can be found in the article and it really is worth the read. I am glad that I found it and took the time to read it.

Final note, the last section, 'The Role of the Zodiac in Indian Astrology', addresses some of the concerns raised here about the interpretation of the two Zodiacs in astrology and some interesting points are made. Addressing them might lead to a fruitful discussion, one which I presently do not have time to participate in.

[Nungali]

In my original post here:

 

 

I made the mistake of not posting some of my previous posts on this subject, such as this:

 

 

or this:

 

 

These have now been added so that general readers here will realize that if I recommend an article, such as this:

 

Vedic Astrology - critically examined

 

It is because I know a fair amount about the subject and think that the recommended article has much to offer. I am emphasizing this because it doesn't look to me like anyone followed the original link and read the article. In my own case, after reading the above article, I now know that the material which I bolded in the first quote above:

 

 

is misleading and if you want to know how and in what way you should read the article. My strong point is the history of Western Astrology, as the above quotes from my posts makes clear, but based on the article I would now have to say that the use of Aries to begin the Indian Lunar Mansions is a relatively late practice and not based on the oldest Indian scriptural authority, as I thought it might be:

 

Okay, I have read the article (I will have return later to read all of the notes, but I think I get the gist of it).

 

First of all, I realise you are responding to the comments about Vedic. I have not been advocating the Vedic system. For some reason the word sidereal often equates instantly to ... "Oh ... you mean Vedic or Jyotish astrology." Although for a quick reference I may cast a natal 'Fagan' style on astodienst. I guess there is no known common alternative.

 

I have had too had an experience with a Hare Krishna 'astrologer' years ago to look too far into it, a little like Mr Koch had ( a little) all the way through having to take him outside and force him to visually observe the Moon (as he said it should not be in the position he said it was ... I gave up saying "Well, you can argue with me but you cant argue with the Moon." - so I left him out there to argue with the Moon ( religious faith is a remarkable thing

 

I did like the article ( and love that site) ... its fine for a focus on Vedic by itself but not sidereal generally (and Vedic isnt wholly sideral anyway, as the article points out ... actually - its a mess! ) by sidereal I dont mean Vedic, I mean; " of, relating to, or expressed in relation to stars or constellations" .... the inter relationship between the angular arrangements of planets Moon and Sun in relation to stars, asterisms (more so) and constellations (not so much).

 

So, zero degrees Aries as the beginning point of the Lunar Mansions and thus the Sidereal Zodiac was chosen much later then the Vedic scriptures, in point of fact after the introduction of Hellenistic Astrology to India. Details can be found in the article and it really is worth the read. I am glad that I found it and took the time to read it.

 

Thanks for drawing attention to it again, yes it is valuable. I wish I had read it before I disputed what the Vedic Krishna astrologer was insisting to me and got into that argument .

 

 

 

Final note, the last section, 'The Role of the Zodiac in Indian Astrology', addresses some of the concerns raised here about the interpretation of the two Zodiacs in astrology and some interesting points are made. Addressing them might lead to a fruitful discussion, one which I presently do not have time to participate in.

 

What seems to be missing or ‘confused’ is what I see as the two functions for astrology; The article is good as it points out the same confusion that seems apparent in Vedic astrology as well. The problem seems to be in ‘snap shot images of the stars’ those that acknowledge precession have had access to or awareness of much longer astro records.

 

 

"Such conclusions were based not only on the observation of celestial bodies, but also other natural phenomena, as cloud formations, animal behaviour, flowing behaviour of rivers, etc"

 

- This is very relevant in Aboriginal star lore as well. Its all interconnected.

 

"From the above follows: The sidereal zero point makes sense only on the basis of ancient Indian astronomical theories that are erroneous according to modern astronomy:

 

" ... on the basis of the theory of trepidation, according to which the vernal point swings around the sidereal zero point with an amplitude of 27°, and ... based on the idea that at the end or beginning of each great age all planets and the vernal point form a great conjunction exactly at the sidereal zero point.

 

" After modern astronomy has shown that these two traditional teachings are not correct, the validity of the sidereal zodiac is seriously challenged. The sidereal zodiac has no sensible definition any more."

 

( I agree that what he wrote negates Vedic astrology as a sidereal sensible system but does that negate all sidereal systems ? Even if they have a fixed star starting point?

 

" The weakest point of so-called “Vedic” astrology is that it cannot say where exactly the sidereal zodiac has its zero point."

 

- I certainly admit the lack of one is a serious problem but as long as you have one, what difference does it make where it is ?… where is the beginning point of a circle, a year (spring equinox; Summer solstice) … a day even (some use midnight, some use dawn some use sunset). Although it seems damning for Vedic astrology - that doesnt negate the idea of sidereal astrology (although there may be no real 'common' form of it. Again, the GD used Regulus.

 

“With Hitler the tropical Taurus Sun (territorial thinking, nationalism) holds at least as good as a sidereal Aries Sun. With Bill Gates and his Microsoft monster I would also rather opt for a Sun in tropical Scorpio than in sidereal Libra.’”

 

– I am still wondering if people would see me as more Gemini or Cancer (Sun).

 

Basically I am seeing ( trying to include all types of 'astrology' or 'star lore' ) a difference between that which I will term ‘spiritual’ ( ‘sidereal’) - relating to socio- cultural / clan issues, initiation, mythological themes, etc and ‘agricultural’ * and hunter gatherer) seasonal or tropical astrology.

 

Or, as it refers to above - " in magic it is preferable to use the Sidereal Zodiac."

 

Although I have no evidence of it I find it would be highly unusual for a group of Aboriginals to observe a planet ( which they might conceive as a home for the ancestors and linked by a cord to Earth) passing through a cosmic totemic sign (especially ones showing a prohibited activity) and think nothing of that.

 

 

IMO I am fortunate enough to have some contact with people who saw things in a very ancient way, whose traditions in some cases are extremely old and extant. This has been influential in the view I have developed. A few astrologers have negated that as rare, inexperienced, made up, oral inaccurate tradition, or too speculative.

 

Then there is a big hole ... then the first glimmerings of the beginnings of a 'modern' development - with which in any case, there is a whole dynamic just out of reach (lost, unknown, destroyed, but alluded to by the ancients) here and it is the pre Greek origin of Astrology ... which may have been also an originating ( now lost or partially survived and mutated) influence on the pre-Vedics (before the Greeks) and the Babylonians ... but this is probably due for the same criticisms in the last paragraph ?

 

http://zoroastrianastrology.blogspot.com.au/

[Unseen_Abilities]

Anyone else have Lilith in Scorpio? She's a bitch to integrate. 10th house, 0 degrees. It's pretty cool as well though.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Pardon me if I begin as I ended:

one which I presently do not have time to participate in.

and give the full quote from which you excise this:

"Or, as it refers to above - " in magic it is preferable to use the Sidereal Zodiac.""

Which in full read:

"for purposes of working with the Arabic Lunar Mansions in magic it is preferable to use the Sidereal Zodiac"

I am a stickler for detail, but it is exactly this sense of detail combined with external time constraints which makes the present discussion so frustrating for me and why I felt it necessary to point out the article again. It is about all that I have time for right now and the most useful thing that I could contribute under the overall circumstances.

I have noted that you are concerned about Aboriginal star lore and constellations, but what they have to do with Zodiacs is an interesting question, one that has concerned me a lot in my studies in Chinese astrology:

. . . most reliable histories of Western astrology see it as arising largely from 'Chaldean' sources, by which I mean Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian sources, seriously reworked by the Greek philosophical/mathematical schools, with a rather late influx of Egyptian material. Likewise Chinese astrology seems to have a purely indigenous origin and it may have been influenced to some extent by Indian astrology brought in by Buddhist missionaries, it seems to have remained very faithful to a fundamentally Chinese Cosmology.

The origin of the 'twelve animals' is one of the curious mysteries of Chinese Astrology. While Westerners routinely translate the earthly branches by their animal correspondences, i.e., zi, which means male infant or boy, is always rendered as rat, Derek Walters cogently argues (Chinese Astrology, 1987, revised 2002) that the while earthly branches were well established by the Han, that the twelve animals corresponding to them did not appear until after 600 C.E.

It is also very difficult to make any well formed comparison between the twelve signs of the Zodiac and the twelve animal signs, even as a listing of animals a comparison is not easy without taking real liberties of meaning. There are, for example, no humans in the twelve animals, but the Zodiac includes: Gemini, the twins, Virgo, the 'young woman', and Aquarius, the water bearer, all of which have human referents, not animal. Also the order of the animals does not seem to correspondence in any meaningful way. When we get down to such cosmological considerations as the use of the Western four elements and the Chinese five, we are simply not in Kansas anymore (for those of other cultures the reference is to The Wizard of Oz, the intent is to point out that the models are incommensurable).

All of that said, since the earthly branches do have not one, but two monthly cycles it is possible to find out what earthly branch will correspond with a particular period during the year . . . Which (of these two) it will be depends in part on which of our two methods, the Solar or the Lunar is used. If the solar method is used than it is very straight forward the earthly branches begin with the Rat at fifteen degrees of Sagittarius and continues 15 degrees out of phase through the Zodiac, so that each Western sign is evenly divided in half, one part going to the earlier earthly branch and the second going to the later one. Thus the last part of Sagittarius belongs to the Rat, its first part to the Boar. The first part of Capricorn belongs to the Rat and the second to the Ox. Continuing this around the first part of Aries belongs to the Rabbit and the second part to the Dragon.

Using the lunar method is more complex because you have to count from the day of the new moon closest to the beginning of the Tiger roughly two weeks either way from February fifth, so this is either in the last fifteen degrees of the Ox or the first fifteen degrees of the Tiger, which oddly enough turns out to be the new moon in the sign of Aquarius. All of this is much clearer if you know about what are called the twenty-four Solar qi and how they relate to the seasons, but really this is going to be long enough as it is without a digression on them. So starting from a new moon early in Aquarius, i.e., before February fifth, you will find that fewer days during Aries will be those of a lunar Rabbit and more will be of a lunar Dragon, on the other hand with a new moon later in Aquarius, i.e., after February Fifth, there will be more days that are days of the lunar Rabbit during Aries than days of the lunar Dragon. A few diagrams might make this clearer, but I don't have the time to draw them right now.

 

. . .

Regarding the precession of the equinoxes . . . The precession hardly affects either Western astrology, or Bazi astrology at all because they are more about the properties of a period of time and not about the properties of a subset of stars occupying a particular position in space, but having looked back at how long the above is, I have decided to save that for another post, this one is long enough as it is.
(Parenthetical remark in the fourth paragraph is not in original, added for continuity. ZYD)

(Emphasis in the last paragraph added for this post, ZYD)

Chinese astrology has lots of interesting star lore and at least one of its astrologies, Zi wei dou shu, is pretty much completely a 'star' astrology, with no 'zodiac' involved at all. On the other hand the Chinese do have a well formed Zodiac, as pointed out above, which seems to have very little relation to Chinese stellar cosmology. How these systems relate and how star lore becomes 'astro-nomos' and 'astro-logos', in other words how the primary data of star lore is turned into systems of 'star classification' and 'star logic' is a complex and interesting study. Too many questions, too little time.

 

they are more about the properties of a period of time and not about the properties of a subset of stars occupying a particular position in space: I emphasized this to point out time is as important as space and that astrology is as much about time cycles as geometry and especially in more traditional astrology, those cycles as discrete blocks of time tend to trump planetary positions in space. I prefer to view both space and time as discrete 'sections' of higher dimensional space/time and to interpret astrology as sacred information theory, or in the words of the fundamental metaphor for astrology that I worked out circa 1970, 'astrology is the body language of the Cosmic Mind'.

I hope that you and Michael Sternbach, a most welcome new voice here on the Tao Bums, will continue to have a fruitful and interesting discussion. I have simply tried to add to it as best as I can for now.

[Horus]

'astrology is the body language of the Cosmic Mind'.

Nice post Zyd - thanks

[Nungali]

Lunar, solar. ?

 

I have read that some consider the Egyptian Old Kingdom as 'Stella based', Middle Kingdom as Lunar based a New Kingdom as Solar based ?

 

And speaking of the Egyptian (and I hope Apech is reading and wants to contribute here) what do we think of the Dendera Zodiac as a piece that that shows part of the process of how animal / people zodiac images might relate to Egyptian Decans ?