other Astrology traditions?

ravenest

Relevent constellations in astrology

Minderwiz said:
I think it's important to make a distinction between 'stars' and the 'constellations' (or more properly for Astrology the zodiac). As a means of charting the position of planets in the heavens (as seen from Earth) the constellations of the zodiac are now for better or worse irrelevant and indeed as Dave points out, have been for at least two millenia.

Well, what 'Dave points out' and what you seem to suggest is NOT irrelevant to some. It might be to the sort of astrology some are using, but there is a bigger picture than that.

I'll use one example (and give proof of it's relevance)

"We would picture the CONSTELLATIONS as the consonants of the Universal language and the planets as vowels. The continually varying relationship of the planetary vowels to each other, against changing star backgrounds, brings about a rich speaking of the stars form (note: not star's ie. plural - in constellation) giving forces to earthly expression." The 2008 Antipodean Astro Calendar 21st edition, p.14. (my caps)

The Astro calendar deffinatly uses constellations, and has great revelance for the many, many Bio-dynamic agriculturalists that use it. This type of astrological based system (using a sidearal system of "12 Constellations" {Ibid. p.14} ), of agriculture is prooving to be successful word-wide, producing healthy, crops, with high life-vorce vitality and no chemical fertilisers, pesticide,etc. It is not just a theoretical system but a living, dynamic working system in use today.

I dont understand why some people are trying to say that these types of astrology are not there or not revelant.
 

Minderwiz

An interesting quote but on second reading it doesn't seem as clear as it seems first time round. Indeed if you had read on you would have found a definition of 'constellation' on the website.

On the website for the Antipodean Astro calendar, the author, Brian Keats, uses the word 'constellations' to refer to the sidereal zodiac but as Dave and I have pointed out, this does not correspond to the actual physical constellations, it refers to twelve equal signs measured from some point in Aries. Keats' use of the word 'signs' to refer solely to the tropical zodiac is non-standard and hid use of the word 'constellations' is astronomically incorrect.

So 'Constellations' for this website is a misnomer for 'signs' I repeat, this is not the same as the actual physical constellations - indeed the planets actually pass through around 21 constellations due to their declination to the ecliptic. Some of these constellations overlap, they are all of different sizes.

Now I'm not saying that you can't use a system based on the real constellations for divination - only that the overwhelming vast majority of western and Vedic astrologers use equal signs, based on either the tropical or sidereal zodiacs, including the work that you cite.
 

Minderwiz

Having a look at some of the articles on Keats' website, their appears to be some very interesting material which might warrant its own thread.

Whilst the tropical and sidereal zodiacs differ only in their zero point this should not be taken as a minor difference. Indeed the choice of which zodiac to use is one of the big issues in Astrology and evidence which supports one rather than the other might well be worth considering.

The sidereal tradition certainly is relevant to modern Astrology and I never said it wasn't - merely that it, lie the tropical zodiac, is a stylised representation of the physical constellations.
 

dadsnook2000

Tropical & Sidereal

Minderwiz said, "Whilst the tropical and sidereal zodiacs differ only in their zero point this should not be taken as a minor difference."

Indeed, it is not minor. In terms of the "practice of astrology" the Sidereal community can be generalized as having the following characteristics:

** Most "western school" Sidereal astrologers do not use sign meanings. There are some who use sign-rulers to link planets-in-sign/house to another sign/house so as to enrich their interpretation.

** Using the Sidereal Zodiac for casting Solar Returns is the key to the high level of predictive accuracy ("what" and "when") that Siderealists achieve. The difference is all about timing. The Tropical Solar Return occurs earlier than the Sidereal Solar Return because of the precession factor. Around age 35, the tropical zodiac has moved back along the Earth's orbital plane by about 1/2 of a degree, or about half a day's movement. This results in a totally different chart orientation.

** Other Sidereal techniques are also affected by this difference in "timing" of charts.

Just a couple of thoughts. Dave
 

firecatpickles

When did most astrologers move from the sidereal to the tropical system?

The reason I ask is because my fundamentalist grandmother claims up-and-down that she is a "Pisces" (pronouncing it "PIE-sis" LOL). This means she has actually studied, or knows enough about, astrology, to go by the older "sidereal" system. Her birthday is April 20, 1919.

If I can pinpoint more-or-less the time when we moved from the sidereal to tropical systems (my guess is in the 1930's) then I can ask her how much she knows }) or at least when she started studying.
 

dadsnook2000

Way back when

Way back when the two zodiacs coincided appears to be the best guess, that and historical records, about 214 AD. Many blame the Greeks. Precession had been known earlier by Greek writers and other astrological-savvy cultures, but it seems that many at this time (over a century or two) switched over to the Tropical Zodiac. This became the zodiac used in middle ages and renaissance periods and which carried into latter day Europe. The many switches and changes in interpretation during these centuries may have been also related to the changes of zodiac. I'm sure many others will also have something to say about this debatable topic. Dave

PS; this was before your grandmother's time by some great margin. It might be that she was quite knowledgeable about astrology.
 

Minderwiz

I don't think we know for sure, but I'd guess that the 'change' as such never actually took place. The importance of the Spring equinox (N hemisphere) was already there - even when this took place in Taurus or even Gemini. Astrology developed out of a need to predict seasonal change. as Exodus states, 'for everything there is a season,... a time to plant and a time to sow.....'

Much of the developments and refinements to Astrology took place when the equinox was in Aries. As the equinox moved back into Pisces, inertia kept the definition as 0 degrees Aries because I suspect the literature and tradition made this the easiest way to continue - it was the equinox which was important to most Western (but not Indian) Astrologers, not the constellation it took place in.

I'm not familiar enough with Vedic Astrology to explain why they decided to abandon the equinox and keep to the Aries starting point. I suspect that much is because the Greek influence on Vedic Astrology was lost as the Roman empire crumbled.

For modern Astrology the need to predict the seasonal change is not particularly important so the need for an equinox based system is not as strong but inertia and the body of interpretation of signs and planets still keeps this as a dominant thread
 

ravenest

Minderwiz said:
An interesting quote but on second reading it doesn't seem as clear as it seems first time round. Indeed if you had read on you would have found a definition of 'constellation' on the website.

I was quoting the calendar, not the website, there is no 'reading on' on the calender on this point. I will check out the website however and try to see how you came to this conclusion.

Minderwiz said:
On the website for the Antipodean Astro calendar, the author, Brian Keats, uses the word 'constellations' to refer to the sidereal zodiac but as Dave and I have pointed out, this does not correspond to the actual physical constellations, it refers to twelve equal signs measured from some point in Aries.

At this point (without minutely examining the current website) I believe that the misinterpretation is due to Brian's use of an equal 30 deg. devision of 12 'signs' (for ease of usage) being placed over the constellations. The reason I am so adamant that Brian is talking about actual constellations is because the whole system uses (well, it did last time I checked), not only constellations but postulates/suggests (hang on now - it gets a little wild) the existence of spiritual beings that reside in the constellations and 'radiate' or 'give forth' their energy towards earth.

Minderwiz said:
Keats' use of the word 'signs' to refer solely to the tropical zodiac is non-standard and hid use of the word 'constellations' is astronomically incorrect.

Sorry, you lost me there. Why is the use of the word sign within the tropical zodiac non-standard? And why is the use of the word constellation astronomically incorrect? All he is doing is giving the area of space around a constellation the attributes of that constellation and defining its influence, from one sign to another, with a border drawn. I dont agree with this method myself, but they do research, (by observing the actual changes in nature and natural processes and then observing astronomical positions) to further define these boundaries of influence. Until the research and results are correlated, I guess these current boundaries will define the constellations influence.

Minderwiz said:
So 'Constellations' for this website is a misnomer for 'signs' I repeat, this is not the same as the actual physical constellations - indeed the planets actually pass through around 21 constellations due to their declination to the ecliptic. Some of these constellations overlap, they are all of different sizes.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, this is why I dont like the 12 equal house system based on hypothetical movement along the ecliptic.

Minderwiz said:
Now I'm not saying that you can't use a system based on the real constellations for divination - only that the overwhelming vast majority of western and Vedic astrologers use equal signs, based on either the tropical or sidereal zodiacs, including the work that you cite.

Ahhhh! We agree!

My point originally (in all this) was that, yes you CAN use a constellational system, and in fact that WAS the system used originally with the 12 division 30 deg, signs superimposed over them for ease of reference and calculation.
AND that the vast majority of people AND just about every common reference declare or think that it is the actual stars and constellations that are the issue.

(Sorry about format - dont know what i did to the quote function?
 

ravenest

That's one old granny

kilts_knave said:
When did most astrologers move from the sidereal to the tropical system?

The reason I ask is because my fundamentalist grandmother claims up-and-down that she is a "Pisces" (pronouncing it "PIE-sis" LOL). This means she has actually studied, or knows enough about, astrology, to go by the older "sidereal" system. Her birthday is April 20, 1919.

If I can pinpoint more-or-less the time when we moved from the sidereal to tropical systems (my guess is in the 1930's) then I can ask her how much she knows }) or at least when she started studying.

here is a different slant on your question.

(Unfortunatly I no longer have reference to the material, my friend got rid of the Ephemeris.)

In my friends old American Ephemeris there is a page at the front with some calculating info. Right down the bottom in small print is a rave about equinoctal precession and how to include that calculation into the other calculations to take that precession into account. Later when I talked to someone about this they said astrologers dont do that and didnt know what I was talking about. I asked for a copy of her American Ephemeris, which was newer and couldnt find the note. Its not put in them any more.

perhaps someone with old copies could research this. Unfortunatly I cant give ref, to this so some will think I'm making it up.

But it certainly makes more sense (if we assume your grandma used or had her chart done using one of these ephemeris) than a 1700 y.o. grandma? :laugh:
 

ravenest

dadsnook2000 said:
Way back when the two zodiacs coincided appears to be the best guess, that and historical records, about 214 AD. Many blame the Greeks. Precession had been known earlier by Greek writers and other astrological-savvy cultures, but it seems that many at this time (over a century or two) switched over to the Tropical Zodiac. This became the zodiac used in middle ages and renaissance periods and which carried into latter day Europe. .

That is an interesting point. I think if we examine the mind-set then, including perceptions of cosmology and 'world-view' and its relation to an understanding , then, of how man fitted into it all we might come to conclusions about why the 'map' seemed more important than the 'territory'.

My idea is that these two systems just didnt 'happen' to coincide at some time but that WHEN they did (or around that time) the 'tropical' system had been placed over the stars as a grid reference, and WAS meant to represent the stars, and their supposed influence or flavour was attributed to them from occurences in the natural world (including agriculture) that happened at a specific time of year (after all, what is one to think when the astrological signs have the same name and are in the same order as the constellations?). ALSO there were' cosmic' influences attributed to the star groups, relating to mythology and processes beyond the yearly sun cycle of seasons.