other Astrology traditions?

Minderwiz

ravenest said:
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.


Well the calendar can't use the physical constellations because we both agree that more than 12 lie on the ecliptic - it uses a sidereal zodiac of 12 equal signs.

Indeed Brian Keats, author of the calendar says

'At this stage it is important to clarify the use of two words. When the word ‘sign’ is used in this article it refers to the Tropical Zodiac and ‘constellation’ refers to the Sidereal Zodiac. Both zodiacs are divided into twelve and they both use the same names, which understandably causes enormous confusion.'

So Keats is using the word 'constellation to avoid confusion (though clearly he is unsuccessful'.

He acknowledges that the Sun appears to move through 12 or 13 (physical) constellations (whic we both agree)

He further says:

'Different cultures and systems have positioned them differently i.e. there is no universal consensus to the boundaries or even to the size of the constellations. Generally speaking the sidereal zodiac is that belt of stars 7 degrees either side of the sun’s path (ecliptic) through the sky that is divided into 12 equal sized (30 degree) constellations. '

Baring in mind his definition of 'constellations' it is clear that he is using the same sidereal zodiac of 12 equal signs that both Dave and I have referred to. He is not using the physical constellations that you appear to believe he is.

Now he, like me, clearly accepts that someone might wish to use the physical constellations but that is not the same as claiming that he is actually doing it.

Your quote does not support your case - indeed it supports my case.

Also has it occured to you that the reason for the constellations baring the same names in the same order as that used by Astrologers is that Astrologers made it so? Who do you think named the constellations and (finally) settled on their order? You seem to believe that someone who was not an Astrologer settled the names and order totally independent of and prior to Astrology.

Primitive Astrologers decided the names and when they realised that the physical zodiac was too primitive for sophisticated work they developed the 360 degree circle and 'joined up' the constellatios as signs.

Yes, three thousand years ago or so, primitive Astrology did make predictions using the stars as a back drop - or rather those stars that marked the equinoxes and solstices. Astrology never used the constellations for any orther purpose than predicting changes in seasons - and rconsequen events such as the flooding of the Nile Fom about two thousand five hundred years ago Astrologers developed the 12 equal sign zodiac that we use today (either in its tropical form or its sidereal form.

That's the basis of Western (and Vedic) Astrology. Now feel free to use a different base but realise that you will have to develop a whole new system if you want to do more than predict regular seasonal change.

Edited to add:

In all the argument about the nature of the Astrological zodiac we are concentrating on a solar based approach to Astrology. Don't forget that for much of its history lunar cycles have been as much or more important. They are also important for many religions. To accurately use lunar cycles we need tables just as much as for solar based astrology. It's mathematics rather than physical observation which dominates, which you'd realise if you tried to look for the first signs of the New Moon in Northern England.
 

ravenest

Minderwiz said:
Also has it occured to you that the reason for the constellations baring the same names in the same order as that used by Astrologers is that Astrologers made it so? Who do you think named the constellations and (finally) settled on their order? You seem to believe that someone who was not an Astrologer settled the names and order totally independent of and prior to Astrology.

Gee, did my earlier comments make it SO unclear? I thought I made a simple point ... but the above question .... well, that's just confusing. You appear to have missed my whole point which relates to earlier issues in discussion. That was a comment about how some tropical astrologers say that there is no connection between the constellations and signs.
Minderwiz said:
Primitive Astrologers decided the names and when they realised that the physical zodiac was too primitive for sophisticated work they developed the 360 degree circle and 'joined up' the constellatios as signs.
I agree. But FIRST they worked with the constellations, not theorietical boundaries from the equinoctal point, when that shifted, they still called the devisions by the name of the constellation, although the constellations name now defined a diferent area of space. I dont know who these first ,'not astrologers' were you seem to think I believe in? If someone back in 10.000 bc was contemplating the stars in anyway and applying that information to a life process then, to me, they are an astrologer.
Minderwiz said:
Yes, three thousand years ago or so, primitive Astrology did make predictions using the stars as a back drop - or rather those stars that marked the equinoxes and solstices. Astrology never used the constellations for any orther purpose than predicting changes in seasons - and rconsequen events such as the flooding of the Nile Fom about two thousand five hundred years ago Astrologers developed the 12 equal sign zodiac that we use today (either in its tropical form or its sidereal form.
There you go again! "Astrology never used the constellations for any orther purpose than predicting changes in seasons ". In one sentence you deny the oldest extant astrology in the world still current today. An example, Bill Yidumduma of the Wardaman culture (Australian Aboriginal) says that the most important part of their star lore is to make men. ie. to lead men through a process of initiation to make them useful and respected members of their environment and society. And you have agreed that CONSTELLATIONS are used to predict changes in seasons (not signs) ...

I'm confused, you do make some good points (which I will follow up with Brian keats - as I believe you are mistaken) but then some other things you say are quiet confusing to me ... and selective. But then again I suppose one can do that here, just ignore some points in discussion and address others.
Minderwiz said:
That's the basis of Western (and Vedic) Astrology. Now feel free to use a different base but realise that you will have to develop a whole new system if you want to do more than predict regular seasonal change.
Well. I do realise that, that is the whole point, that the current system is not capable of utalising the constellations properly - it calculated itself out of reality, in a way. I'm not saying it is useless - I can see value in it as a useful tool. But it isnt defining the stars infuences anymore. And the majority of people think and definitions of astrology declare THAT is what it is supposed to be doing.
Minderwiz said:
Edited to add:

In all the argument about the nature of the Astrological zodiac we are concentrating on a solar based approach to Astrology. Don't forget that for much of its history lunar cycles have been as much or more important. They are also important for many religions. To accurately use lunar cycles we need tables just as much as for solar based astrology. It's mathematics rather than physical observation which dominates, which you'd realise if you tried to look for the first signs of the New Moon in Northern England.

And don't forget that preceding this astrology was star based (as in the Old Kingdom- in Egypt), and I assume they needed tables and cycles as well (who ever said you shouldnt use a table? I just think it should be a correct table, with correct labeling). Mathmatics might be more important to some, but over time, without backup observation (like; "Hey guys, the whole things moved 28 degrees!") makes for an unrealistic system disconeccted from stellar reality.

And I dont live in Northern England, although I'm sure occasionaly one gets a clear sky there to pull their head out of a book and look at the wonders of the heavens?
 

kwaw

Tropical signs do not exist in the sky. Pseudo-sidereal constellations of equal 30 degree proportions do not exist in the sky. They are both math mapping systems. The earliest reference to the division of the ecliptic into 12 thirty degree divisions is in the Babylonian Mu.Alpin tablets c.700 b.c.e.

Ptolemy c.150 AD used the tropical zodiac. The precession of the equinox was of course known about for at least 300 years before the time of Ptolemy (it is mentioned by Hipparchus) and was probably actually discovered even earlier by the Babylonians.

Ptolemy was aware of it and mentions it in the tetrabiblos. He clearly states however that the thirty degrees beginning from the vernal equinox are the sign Aries, WHATEVER THE CONSTELLATION THAT IS ACTUALLY THERE. In chapter 22 he explains that the reason for this is that the signs take their meaning, influence and associations from the powers of the equinoctial and solstitial starting places - AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SIGN.

Ptolemy claims nothing new in either his 'Tetrabiblos' or his 'Almagest'. He claims to write only of astrology as practiced not only in his time, but as it was taught to the Greeks by the 'ancient one' (the Babylonian Priest of Marduk Berossus circa 290 BC.

On the occasion of the Babylonian New Year, which happened at the time of the first New Moon following the Vernal Equinox, the King announced as part of his 'formula' for the year, whether or not there would be an intercalary month that year. As their calendar was Lunar this was necessary for purpose of agriculture and religious beliefs to keep it in line with the Solar year. The calculation of this was the job of the astrologer-priests who we know from records had a precise and accurate knowledge of the solar year and the timing of the equinoctial and solstice points.

Babylonian astrologer-priests were trained scribes and mathematicians, and Babylonian maths was the most advanced of any ancient culture up to and including the Greeks. As part of their training the astrologer-priests had to produce their own 56 year ephemerides, applying their maths skills to their knowledge of the velocities and periods of the celestial bodies. As it was part of their training the astrologer-priests were able to convert between the lunar calendar and solar year as a matter of course, and the conversion involved the equinoctial and solstice points. By sometime during the 4th century BC they had devised a formula, a mathematical rule, by which 7 years out of 19 were intercalary. The same 19 year rule used by the church to decided the date of Easter in fact. It was at the same period as this formula came into use that we have the oldest extent horoscope, which has been dated to 409 BC. It is not possible from the information within it to ascertain whether they are tropical signs or pseudo-sidereal 'constellations'.

In summary the earliest extent horoscope is from Babylonia c.409 BC, from which it is not possible to tell if it is tropical or pseudo-sidereal based. From Ptolemy c.150 AD we have reference to the tropical zodiac of 12 equal divisions commencing from the vernal equinox. Definite reference to the pseudo-sidereal zodiac goes back to no earlier than 3rd century AD India. The use of actual fixed stars and groups of fixed stars (of which the Babylonians for example identified 18 constellations ‘in the moon’s path') as seasonal markers AND in astrological interpretation obviously predates both the tropical and the pseudo-sidereal division into 12 equal sign/constellations divisions of our present day zodiac.

Ozymandias, pharaoh of Egypt, Ramses II fixed the cardinal points with Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn c.1250 BC.

Kwaw
(From posts originally made to alt.astrology newsgroup 1998)

An astrology timeline:

http://w1.1564.telia.com/~u156400111/asmusdoc/history/timeline1.htm
 

ravenest

Firstly, thanks for the info Kwaw, most interesting.

kwaw said:
Ptolemy was aware of it and mentions it in the tetrabiblos. He clearly states however that the thirty degrees beginning from the vernal equinox are the sign Aries, WHATEVER THE CONSTELLATION THAT IS ACTUALLY THERE. In chapter 22 he explains that the reason for this is that the signs take their meaning, influence and associations from the powers of the equinoctial and solstitial starting places - AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SIGN.

So, since this is the case, would you say that these divisions are relating more to the seasons variation and influences (powers of the solsticial and equinoctal starting places) and therefore relativly devoid of 'cosmic stella influences' - and if so what is the dynamic that makes northen hemisphere and southern hemisphere charts the same (with their reversed season)?

And also, if 'astrology' has nothing to do with constellations and is all about these divisions starting with the equinoctal point and based on the solsticial points as well, what is the whole point of moving the signs in a sidereal astrological system so that these divisions now line up (roughly) with the constellations?
kwaw said:
The use of actual fixed stars and groups of fixed stars (of which the Babylonians for example identified 18 constellations ‘in the moon’s path') as seasonal markers AND in astrological interpretation obviously predates both the tropical and the pseudo-sidereal division into 12 equal sign/constellations divisions of our present day zodiac.
yes, as I thought they did. I am sure an early constellational system preceded a tropical system.
kwaw said:
Ozymandias, pharaoh of Egypt, Ramses II fixed the cardinal points with Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn c.1250 BC.

Where can I find more info about this?

It appears that what most call astrology is fairly narrowly defined to a western culture (or the sources of that culture- with the exception of India?)

Since the topic of this thread is 'OTHER astrological traditions' (and the question was specifically asked about non-western traditions)I assumed we might be able to explore other cultures development of it (specifically in my case; Australian Aboriginal), but perhaps not - western culture gets the monoply ... again!). However, regardless of what some say, there is a rich, vast and natural 'other tradition' out there, which does indeed use stars and constellations (in whatever form they group them according to their cultural and environmental awareness).
 

ravenest

Since I said I would get back on this point asfter checking with Brian Keats - here it is. {I felt no need to contact Brian as I believe he has made it more than clear - on a second reading - see below}

Minderwiz said:
Indeed Brian Keats, author of the calendar says

'At this stage it is important to clarify the use of two words. When the word ‘sign’ is used in this article it refers to the Tropical Zodiac and ‘constellation’ refers to the Sidereal Zodiac. Both zodiacs are divided into twelve and they both use the same names, which understandably causes enormous confusion.'

So Keats is using the word 'constellation to avoid confusion (though clearly he is unsuccessful'.

I believe it is you that are in confusion - not Brian - see below.

Minderwiz said:
He further says:

'Different cultures and systems have positioned them differently i.e. there is no universal consensus to the boundaries or even to the size of the constellations. Generally speaking the sidereal zodiac is that belt of stars 7 degrees either side of the sun’s path (ecliptic) through the sky that is divided into 12 equal sized (30 degree) constellations. '

Baring in mind his definition of 'constellations' it is clear that he is using the same sidereal zodiac of 12 equal signs that both Dave and I have referred to. He is not using the physical constellations that you appear to believe he is.

No, you are wrong. If you had read a bit further and not got into selective quoting so much:
Brian Keats, in describing the system of sidereal astrology used in the calendar and for Bio-dynamic agriculture states,
"The sidereal zodiac is the division of the STAR MAP into 12 sectors through which the Sun travels. These are the PHYSICAL STARS that can be observed with your eyes." - rear cover 2007 Antipodean calendar and p.16 2008 Antipodean calendar. (My emphasis) - One can't be much clearer than that!

Also: "because the constellations are of different sizes, the Moon stands in front of each between 1.5 to 3.5 days. the different constellations establish favourible conditions for the plants which the Moon will further focus as it passes in front of these FIXED STARS." (My emaphasis) - Biodynamic Resource Manual, 3rd, Ed. 2006.

Minderwiz said:
Your quote does not support your case - indeed it supports my case.
?????
 

dadsnook2000

The Sidereal Zodiac

I don't normally care to discuss this subject area with ravenest because he is coming from a point of view and belief, IMHO, which is both out of the mainstream of astrological practice as employed by "western" and "vedic" astrologers. As far as his statement in the previous post concerning Brian Keats' use of the word constellations, I would say that Keats purposely used the word "constellations" to refer to what he saw as Sidereal Signs. However, Keats is wrong in terms of how the larger community of astrologers work with signs.

Ravenest seems to have a difficult time reconciling his views based on a cultural application of a distant land by a group of people isolated from the larger world of astrology with the same general practice that so many of us here on this list practice.

Constellations are star patterns, patterns which are placed in various sectors which have unique degree spans relative to the zodiac belt. There are many constellations and you can choose to use which ever you want for want to use them for.

Tropical signs, as used by astrologers, are mathematical 30 degree segments placed, conceptually, such that they start at the zero Aries point which coincidentally is defined as the spring equinox point.

Sidereal signs, as used by astrologers, are mathematical 30 degree segments placed, conceptually, such that they follow the zodiac belt but are rotated such that certain sign-degrees are tagged to specific reference stars. Those reference stars have no purpose or meaning in terms of the Sidereal Zodiac other than its mathematical orientation. Except for the Indian/Vedic astrological group, most western Sidereal astrologers don't incorporate sign meanings in their work -- they just use the Sidereal zodiac for planetary positions and for the unique and highly accurate timing benefits that it provides for some cyclic work and for solar returns. This latter statement is not understood by most astrologers.

So, ravenest may argue forever about this view of astrology, it is easier on him and everyone (I would suggest) to part ways in this type of discussion and agree that just about all of "us" have, see, and use a consistent approach to the practice of astrology -- while he has to struggle with incorporating his unique views in a fully defined system that has yet to be published and then examined by his peers. He has not yet been able to fully define his astrology or to demonstrate how it is used to provide answers for a client.

That is about all that I can meaningfully contribute to this discussion. Dave
 

Minderwiz

Well said Dave, I could not express the argument better. I also have given up the attempt to reason because we are starting from different axioms and definitions.

The operative concept is 'system' - Western Astrology has developed a system over the last two thousand years - Ravenest, if you believe there is a better 'system' then explain it or agree that there is little point in carrying on an ultimately sterile discussion.
 

ravenest

dadsnook2000 said:
I don't normally care to discuss this subject area with ravenest because he is coming from a point of view and belief, IMHO, which is both out of the mainstream of astrological practice as employed by "western" and "vedic" astrologers. As far as his statement in the previous post concerning Brian Keats' use of the word constellations, I would say that Keats purposely used the word "constellations" to refer to what he saw as Sidereal Signs. However, Keats is wrong in terms of how the larger community of astrologers work with signs.
I agree I am out of the mainstream - that was my whole point.
I am amazed at how some here have tried to juggle the very clear info given by Brian Keats "The physical stars that you can see" how can it be clearer what Brian's intention is. You may say he is 'wrong in the larger community' others might just leave out the judgemental wrong word and say he has a varient system.
dadsnook2000 said:
Ravenest seems to have a difficult time reconciling his views based on a cultural application of a distant land by a group of people isolated from the larger world of astrology with the same general practice that so many of us here on this list practice.
No, I have a difficult time reconciling your viewpoints and insistence that your system is the only justifiable one. Where is this distant land and isolated people? The Keat's / Bio-dynamic astrological system is worked world wide in many cultures, including India, America, Europe, Australia.
dadsnook2000 said:
So, ravenest may argue forever about this view of astrology, it is easier on him and everyone (I would suggest) to part ways in this type of discussion and agree that just about all of "us" have, see, and use a consistent approach to the practice of astrology
No, I wont just go away, not while my posts are mis-answered, and the relevent questions go unanswered. You know, right from the begining you could have said "Hmmm interesting (or not interesting) I work differently however)." But with this approach I shall continue until the moderator asks me to desist, not a poster who keeps getting the gist 'wrong'.
dadsnook2000 said:
-- while he has to struggle with incorporating his unique views in a fully defined system that has yet to be published and then examined by his peers. He has not yet been able to fully define his astrology or to demonstrate how it is used to provide answers for a client.["QUOTE]
Nice try. I reccommend for anyone interested in this type of astrology and its related work (as I said earlier, a very successful system of agriculture) ther Book; 'Results from the Biodynamic Sowing and Planting Calendar' by Maria Thun, Floris Books 1994 latest ed 1993.
dadsnook2000 said:
That is about all that I can meaningfully contribute to this discussion. Dave
???
 

ravenest

Minderwiz said:
Well said Dave, I could not express the argument better. I also have given up the attempt to reason because we are starting from different axioms and definitions.

The operative concept is 'system' - Western Astrology has developed a system over the last two thousand years - Ravenest, if you believe there is a better 'system' then explain it or agree that there is little point in carrying on an ultimately sterile discussion.

Not better, but perhaps more esoteric in some regards. Also I address the issue that most people think their astrology relates to the stars in the sky that they can see, as do nearly all definitions of the subject I look up. And also a system that helps a new type of organic agriculture. The reason I have become so obstinate to the subject is some peoples unreasonable responses.

The discussion becomes 'sterile' when the information I offer is twisted or misrepresented or ignored. Anyone would think some people feel threatened by a varient viewpoint.