skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Regulus
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Mundane Astrology & World Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: Regulus Reply with quote

I heard John Frawley speak a couple of years ago about the fixed stars and constellations.

One comment that quite intrigued me was his suggestion that the imminent passage of Regulus into Virgo would symbolise a significant change in world affairs. Thats due to occur around 2012 I think. Interesting how it kind of coincides with the Mayan prophecies of the end of the world and age of Aquarius ( depending who you believe!).

I haven't looked historically at the implications of the other 'royal stars' changing signs. I suppose that the last comparable changes would be Fomalhaut moving into Pisces and further back Antares moving into Sagittarius. A rough and ready check makes me think Fomalhaut's movement through the first degree of Pisces was accompanied by the American and French Revolutions?

Anyone have any views to share?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a link from Vivian Robson's book that looks at the Fixed Stars in relation to mundane Astrology.

http://www.winshop.com.au/annew/mundane.htm

Its interesting that the fate of the Roman Catholic Church has been tied to this star in Leo. It has always had associations with monarchy & the leaders of society too. For example many British Kings have had this star prominently in their natal charts.

Globally I would like to think Regulus in Virgo would syumbolise world leaders more concerned with 'cleaning up' planet Earth than extravagently wasting its resources. However, perhaps I'm just dreaming.

As the sign of the Goddess Virgo also seems to have associations with women assuming a greater part of leadership in the world. Perhaps also a time for human over-population to be curtailed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

from another list,

Regulus moved into Leo approx 148BC

This is from Robert Powell:

"At the time of Ptolemy (the epoch date of star catalog is AD 138) the vernal point, which defines 0 Aries in the tropical zodiac, was located at 1 Aries in the sidereal zodiac, i.e., there was only 1 degree difference between the 2 zodiacs at that time. After Ptolemy's death the vernal point shifted slowly back from 1 deg Aries to 0 deg Aries, on account of the Precession of the Equinoxes, where the vernal point regresses thru the sidereal zodiac at a rate of 1 deg every 72 years. The vernal point reached 0 Aries in the sidereal zodiac in AD 221. At this time therefore the 2 zodiacs coincided exactly with one another, and it did not make any difference whether the tropical or the sidereal zodiac was used"

2012 and Mayan Calendar (though there is a joke about this in my family. We say it was a government project and it ran out of funds. snicker)

here is a page that discusses the calendar as one full precession through the zodiac, BACK to the galactic center... very interesting article.

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html

enjoy, Granny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frawley made his argument in a recent Astrologer's Apprentice. I think it was two issues ago. It runs this way: When the other three fixed stars entered a mutable sign, there were significant changes in world history. Antares and Aldebaran are opposed so they do this at the same time. The other was Formalhaut. I'm not sure of the dates and which stars did what and when, but the periods involved were the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The idea is that when Regulus enters Virgo the effects will be greater as now all four Royal stars will be in mutable signs.

Frawley also cautioned that none of us living today will be around to see the effects as these things unfold slowly. The connection with the Myan calendar is therefore irrelevant, Unless the Myans are right.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Tom,

You've reminded me I really need to subscribe to The Astrologer's Apprentice! Thats interesting about the mutable location of all four 'royal stars'.

Yes I suppose the timescale is a bit long for most of us!

I heard somewhere John might be writing a book on the subject of Fixed Stars and constellations as he doesn't seem that enthusiastic about Brady's approach. He still recommends Vivian Robson's book as the best book available.

Mind you the list of Frawley books awaiting publication is quite large already with his Horary casebook pending and several books in Serbian that haven't been published in English yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark,

I want to stick up for Ms Brady here, but not at the expense of John Frawley. I think it is important to understand their respective approaches, and how they differ. It is not out of the question that both methods could be used, but I agree that Brady's delineations are not traditional in the way most of us use that word. However some of her work makes the ancient Greeks look like the new kids on the block.

John's approach is the most common in that he uses the generally accepted longitudes of the fixed stars and incorporates them into the chart. Ptolemy assigned those longitudes and we've been using them ever since. For delineation, Frawley depends heavily on Vivian Robson. This is standard practice. There is much more to John's approach, but let's hold off on that for a moment.

Brady's approach is probably more Babylonian than Greek in origin. It is visual. After all not all the stars are on the ecliptic. In fact her newsletter is entitled Visual Astrology. The big difference here is that Brady uses the location of the stars as they appear from the observer's location as opposed to the assigned longitudes on the ecliptic. If a star is located on the ecliptic like Regulus is, then the longitude used by Ptolemy is correct for all locations. However if a star, such as Algol is viewed in one part of the world, she appears to be located in the sign of Gemini while in another she appears to be at or near 26 Taurus. Brady would consider Algol prominent in the chart if Algol appears on an angle at the same time a planet was also on an angle at any time during the day in question. This is visual. Dirunal motion is used as opposed to the apparent motion through the zodiac. In this way it has much in common with primary directions with the advantage that a birth time is unnecessary.

The appearance of a star and planet on an angle simultaneously is called a paran. Brady gives delineations of the parans and the meanings of the stars in her book Brady's Book of Fixed Stars. She gives traditional delineations and (here is where Frawley, et al disagree) her own delineations, which are based on myth, but exhibit a strong contemporary feminist streak. Some people may prefer that, but I would like to see some evidence that Algol is really feminine fury before I buy into it.

Frawley also uses myth. He suggests looking at the myth of a prominent fixed star in the chart and try to apply the myth to the native. For example a chart I read had stars on the MC whose myth symbolized the internal tug of war between the desire for material and spiritual satisfaction. That hit a real chord with the native who admitted, and her life experiences validated, that her work (MC) was dominated by that dichotomy. She at various times was a protestor, social worker, union activist, leftist political activist, and also worked for a defense firm because the money and benefits were far better than the other stuff, and she roots for her firm to land big defense contracts. You get the idea.

So both Frawley and Brady urge the understanding of myth for using the stars, but Brady believes prominence is determined by visual cues like parans, and Frawley is closer to Ptolemy's approach.

It would be tough to go wrong either way. And yes you do need to subscribe to the Apprentice, but I strongly suggest you buy back issues as John isn't getting it out with any regularity the past few years, which is a shame. But there's lots to enjoy in the older issues, too.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You may wish to subscribe to Bernadette Brady's monthly newsleter

Starlight,

its free and you can see better examples of her work. she is fabulous and you are correct Tom, it is far more Babylonian than Greek. Very interesting articles and if I'm not mistaken you can read back articles on that sight as well.

Granny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Tom,

Thanks for spending the time to clarify the differences between the Brady/Frawley approaches. I was kind of hoping you would respond on that. I have had Robson's book for a while but recently got Brady's book and its obvious her approach is very different. As you state Brady's take on the fixed stars is a visual Babylonian or Egyptian approach as opposed to the Hellenistic/Ptolemaic interpretation focused on the ecliptic. Although I note she does use Anonymous of 379 as a source. There is no denying Brady is a highly intelligent woman to have resusitated all this. It makes me want to rework that old Star Trek line 'its tradition Jim but not as we know it!'

Am I right in thinking Paran is the same in principle as an In Mundo aspect ? I am still trying to get my head around this as its a radically different way of understanding aspects and planetary/star alignments for me.

Incidentally have you come across the work of Diana Rosenberg? I believe she is an another expert in this area. I know Anthony Louis used her Fixed Star workbook extensively for his recently revised Horary book.

Another interesting area of controversy is whether Fixed stars are at all relevant way outside the ecliptic. I know Ebertin disagreed with excluding stars outside the ecliptic and Anne Wright supports this view on her website. What is the traditional take on this? I assume Ptolemy just used stars neighbouring the ecliptic? Or would it be more accurate to view ithe conventional view as proximity to the ecliptic increasing a fixed stars significance?

I do like Brady's take on the circumpolar stars being less relevant to us as they never 'touch the earth' in the way stars subject to heliacal rising do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark

Quote:
Although I note she does use Anonymous of 379 as a source.


I was fortunate to be able to attend a two day workshop given by Bernadette Brady a couple of years ago. As you say, she is a highly intelligent woman and I can attest that she has a real gift for teaching as well. She does not limit her chart delineation to the stars, but rather incorporates them with Hellenistic ideas. To give a personal example, she took charts from people in the audience to illustrate and she took mine. Now for the record, my ASC is 29 Leo so Regulus rises at my birth and I have Mars on the ASC tightly opposed to Mercury on the DSC. She took that aspect with Regulus and a paran, and made a quick but insightful delineation that I could not in good conscience deny:

"Now here is a man with an opinion," she told the audience and there is no way around that.

So her approach to the use of the stars is Babylonian and she has spent considerable time and effort with her study, but it is one part of the delineation, not all of it.


Quote:
Am I right in thinking Paran is the same in principle as an In Mundo aspect?


Kind of. The term "in mundo" for others who might read this pertains to the actual position of the body as measured not only in celestial longitude, but in right ascension and other stuff. Stars in particular are not necessarily very close to the ecliptic. In tropical astrology an aspect in mundo works this way: if a planet is on the MC it is always considered square to the ASC regardless of sign or degree. So if a peson has a Leo ASC and Aries on the MC and say Jupiter is conjunct the MC, it is an in mundo square to the ASC and is interpreted as a square. If you measure Jupiter's position in right ascension it will be about 90 degrees from the ASC regardless of its celestial longitude, if I remember that correctly. I am not home and my references cannot travel with me.

Quote:
Incidentally have you come across the work of Diana Rosenberg? I believe she is an another expert in this area.


I know the name and probably read something of hers on the web. I think her approach is more like Robson's. I am not familiar with her work. There are more knowledgeable people out there than can be studied in a lifetime.

Quote:
I know Ebertin disagreed with excluding stars outside the ecliptic and Anne Wright supports this view on her website. What is the traditional take on this? I assume Ptolemy just used stars neighbouring the ecliptic?


Ebertin is not my favorite astrologer for fixed stars or much of anything else. Most fixed stars that we use are well outside the ecliptic, e.g. Algol. If I recall my history correctly, and don't bet the farm on this, Ptolemy simply assigned celestial longitudes to the fixed stars outside the ecliptic and they may have even been correct for his location. Since Ptoemy is a minor diety in astrology, it stuck for the past 2000 years, but as Brady's work shows, in the pre-Hellenistic era there were other ways of using the stars. She didn't just make this stuff up. It has historical precedent. As I said in a previous post, it is her delineations, which are very contemporary in my view, that give rise to the objections. I don't know of anyone who has found serious fault with her research. Frawley and perhaps Rosenberg promote the method started by Ptolemy. It's a difference of emphasis and technique, not really a question of right and wrong.

Quote:
Or would it be more accurate to view ithe conventional view as proximity to the ecliptic increasing a fixed stars significance?


Most astrologers would agree that stars onthe ecliptic are, in general, more important. The other quality would be magnitude. However this is not a hard and fast rule as everyone agrees of the importance of Algol, a star far off the ecliptic.

Best

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello again,

Thanks so much thats all really helpful.

Diana Rosenberg has written a book entitled 'The New Fixed Star workbook'. It only seems to be available from her website at present. She also has her own software programme on fixed stars.

http://ye-stars.com/

According Robert Hand she is a leading world authority on fixed stars. I must get her book when money/time allows. She is quite traditional in her use of fixed stars although her basic stance is Uranian. Interesting that Meira Epstein the translator of Ibn Ezra into english is also a Uranian Astrologer.

So your an Ebertin sceptic are you? I was surprised to find Olivia Barclay was so effusive about Ebertin & midpoints etc in her book 'Horary Astrology Rediscovered'. Although I guess the idea does have traditional origins. I think Barclay demonstrates a chart of Lilly's to show his use of a midpoint.

I am being greedy I know but there is one more issue I would like to clarify. Its sounds so moronic I hesitate to ask..but heh better a little humiliation than ignorance I say!

It concerns the declination of fixed stars. Some important fixed stars have a high declination either North or South of the celestial equator. For example Toliman/Bungula/Rigel Kentaurus (-60'49 S) is the third brightest star visible from earth. However, its extreme southern declination means its not visible from Europe or North America above 29N. I take it the tradition has always excluded stars that are never directly visible from the latitude of the observer?

Its certanly quite a consideration for astrologers in my part of the world where the latitude is further north than Moscow!

Moreover, what about stars in constellations that are only observable in certain seasons and may dip below the observer horizon? Maybe I am getting confused by Brady's focus on the visible sky here......

Sorry to plague you with so many questions but I am fixed star crazy at the moment! I think this reaffirms my objective to learn more basic astronomy. I was planning to buy the 'Astronomy for Astrologers' CD Deb reviewed here on Skyscript but the link appears to have disappeared.

Does anyone know of any other vitual teaching aids aimed at teaching astrology students astronomy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the mean time, if you are really interested in the subject, Both Diana and BB are on a yahoo discussion group, if you send me a pm or an email I'll send you the group name. She is very open with information, and has lots of very interesting things to share.

Granny
also Ann Wrights Fixed star page is a good general reference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I take it the tradition has always excluded stars that are never directly visible from the latitude of the observer?


I don`t know if that is true or not. I believe Brady would not use them, as the Babylonians worked with what they could see. After astrology went indoors, if a star not visible was listed with a longitude, someone may have used it.

Take granny`s suggestion and join one or both of the yahoo groups and go straight to the people who know this stuff best.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Tom & Granny for all your input,

I would be really interested in that yahoo group you mentioned Granny. I have emailed you for more details.

Thanks

Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
wangshan



Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 101
Location: Chicago

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was just about to post a new question , but seems it is related to this. According to a show on the History channel , between Aug 10-15 ( if I remember correctly) three fixed stars line up exactly with 3 buildings in Washington DC. The Washington Monument with Arcturus , the white House with Regulus , and the Capital Building with Spica. They also mentioned how the constellation Virgo was prominent in the imagery of the founding fathers and that there are 53 zodiacs in and around the capital.The main topic was Freemasons ,although there was no direct mention of astrology. Does anyone have any insite into this??? Just curious
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wangshan,

Alll of this is explained in a book titled The Secret Architecture of Our Nation's Capital by David Ovason, published by Perennial, a division of Harper Collins. His thesis is that the Founding Fathers of the USA were mostly Masons (correct) and that the city of Washington DC was designed largely by Masons,* and that therefore astrology figured prominently in the city's design and electional astrology was used at the founding of the young nation's capital (highly unlikely).

The Masons denied Ovason's claims that astrology is part of their beliefs and organization. I understand since publication of the book Ovason has become a Mason. Virgo does appear prominently at least according to Ovason. It's a fun book to read.

Tom

*I had always believed, for reasons that I've long forgotten, that Washington DC was designed mostly by Thomas Jefferson. According to Ovason, that's not true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Mundane Astrology & World Events All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated