13
AJ wrote:
I read a lot from contemporary western astrologers fitting planet meanings to the sign. Signs and houses do not define the planet IMO.
Using houses and signs to define a planet is (in my view) a common failing of Tropical astrology. The most obvious mis-application is that many traits of Jupiter have been given to tropical Capricorn. Why, one must ask, do successful winning coaches have an abundance of planetary positions in Saturn-ruled Capricorn?

Traditionally Saturn has been related to a melancholic disposition, solitary habits, fear, sorrow and loss. This recent research by Courtney Roberts supporting tropical Capricorn for success has been discussed in the latest edition (December 2018) of the British Correlation Journal. If the research is valid, Tropical Capricorn is the clear winner for successful American football coaches. Traditionally it's Jupiter that has been related to esteem and praise from others, respect, good fortune, attainment and victory. Sidereal Sagittarius is located in the sky area of tropical Capricorn.

However, research is beginning to provide evidence for the basic energy of triplicities. For example, the Tropical “Air??? signs (sidereal Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn–triplicity lords Moon and Venus) are more socially outgoing while the so-called Tropical “Water??? signs (sidereal Gemini, Libra, Aquarius– triplicity lords Saturn and Mercury) are more introverted.

Note that two of these signs have links to Saturn (exaltation in Libra and Saturn’s rulership of Aquarius). AJ, you may not have read the paper I sent you which refers to this research, and the adjustments that have to be made for the sidereal zodiac?

But the main point of my earlier post is that sidereal signs of the same name as their Tropical matches cannot have similar energies since they are located in different parts of the sky. This is to counteract the tropical-to-sidereal copying that is appearing in contemporary books on India's astrology. These books are producing a whole new crop of astrologers with a corrupt view of sidereal signs. The Indian classical texts don't have these errors.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

14
Mark wrote:Alan Leo introduced the commonly used 'modern' or sign based decan system. It was taken from Jytosh or Hindu astrology.
For those who are interested, here's Brihat Jataka
Brihat Jataka, Trans. N.C. Iyer, stanza 11 wrote:"The Lords of the Drekkanas (of a particular sign) are respectively the lords of that sign, the 5th, and the 9th sign
https://archive.org/details/BrihatJatak ... 5/page/n51

The "5th sign" and "9th sign" refer to the signs counted forwards from the sign in question; those 2 signs work out to be the other 2 members of that same triplicity as the quesited sign.

***

I think part of the reason why Leo adopted this system of decans, was that it could easily fit the newly-discovered planets. By the time Leo was writing, two new planets (Uranus & Neptune) were discovered and assigned sign rulerships , but the Western style of minor dignities (Decans and Bounds) had no space for them. The Indian style of subdivision-- i.e. dividing signs into a sort of 'micro-zodiac' provided an attractive solution, for it was an ancient system that could be easily expanded to fit the new planets.

Indeed, one wonders if the modern astrological focus on signs rather than planets arose from Indian influence...

Incidentally, Bonatti does mention this "Indian" system of Decan rulership in passing, calling it "Dorungez"= Ad-darīj??n, but he does not make much of it. (Bonatti, Treatiese 9, on the Twelfth house, Chapter 12.
Note: In the Paperback edition of Ben Dykes' translation, there is an error in the chapter numbering. Chapter 11 is immediately followed by Ch. 13. In any case, the relevant bit is on pg 1408)

***
Bonatti also makes use of Navamsas and Dwads , calling them "Novenaria" and "Duodenaria" . He goes so far as to state not keeping track of the moon's position in the two would lead the astrologer into a false judgment! (Considerations 87 and 89 of his 146 considerations, transl. Ben Dykes). Rather ironically, when the 146 considerations were first translated by Coley, Coley passed them on without explaining what the two subdivisions were.[/url]

15
Edward White wrote:
Indeed, one wonders if the modern astrological focus on signs rather than planets arose from Indian influence...
Similar to ancient western astrology, India’s emphasis has always been on the planets. The psychological emphasis on signs comes from Alan Leo (1860-1917) who abandoned his career as a traveling salesman and started a very successful astrological magazine and business. As he ran into legal trouble emphasizing prediction, on the advice of his lawyer he changed to the psychological meanings of signs. Thus, modern tropical astrology in the west was born.

Leo was a Theosophist, and that’s how some Indian ideas (such as decan lords) made their way into his books and teachings.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm