16
The original transmission of (Greek-language) horoscopic astrology to India in the first/second century CE was a one-way affair, or at least there is no evidence that I know of to the contrary. In the early medieval period, however, there was much more give-and-take between Indian, Persian and Arabic astrologers. So it depends on which period we are looking at. The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.
I'd go along with that, (keeping this short too). But would also add that the Hellenized astrology which flowed via trade routes from Alexandria, through Persia to India, could have had a lot more Persian influence in its origins than we realise. 8th century Arabic historians record reports of how Alexandria the Great destroyed many Persian libraries after his defeat of Darius III. Books on scientific subjects like astrology were transferred to Egypt which then went into the Alexandrian library. Those that were not translated were burned and inscriptions on stone were destroyed. For me, the area around Khurastan in Persia is greatly unappreciated for the influence it had on astrology - eastwards and westwards, and both before and after the 'Hellenistic period'. The same with Babylon and Baghdad but we are more alert to that.

17
Martin Gansten wrote:The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.
But was the influence related to the zodiac per se? Or techniques that can be used?
In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology? If so would this not have influenced both tropical and sidereal astrology in the west?

Bearing in mind what I'm trying to distance myself from is if, say, the eastern astrologers drastically altered the dignities or the humours or whatever - I do not know as I do not know enough about eastern astrology.
So that we can say, as an example "Okay in the tropical zodiac taurus is a mute sign, but in the sidereal zodiac it is an articulate sign" - in other words so that the signs themselves are focused on, not interpretive techniques that may be eastern in origin as I would have no frame of reference to compare them against and also as it wouldn't inform me the differences or evolution of the zodiac between the sidereal and tropical streams.

Keeping in mind that a background reason for wanting to know is also with Therese's opinion about the tropical zodiac changing to match precession, as well as the more basic reason, trying to understand the basic fundamentals of what the signs mean in sidereal astrology. The reason I say that is that in previous experiences when I've asked for simple definitions of what the signs symbolise or signify, sidereal astrologers have baffled me by instead discussing the importance of dashas and nakshatras. So I've struggled in the past to just get a simple idea of what the signs means so that I can compare them with tropical signs, and it seems that most of this is because of using terms familiar to vedic astrologers but which tropical astrologers might be ignorant of.

18
Deb wrote:I'd go along with that, (keeping this short too). But would also add that the Hellenized astrology which flowed via trade routes from Alexandria, through Persia to India, could have had a lot more Persian influence in its origins than we realise.
I fully agree. And it's worth noting, in this forum especially, that the Persian tradition seems to have been sidereal too. Arabic texts based on Persian sources still use a sidereal year for the annual return technique, which seems to have originated in Persia.

19
Paul wrote:In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology?
No, I don't see that they did. They brought in aspects of their own culture (such as Hindu deities and the caste system), but that's a different matter. Descriptions of the signs in Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic sources are largely similar.

20
Martin Gansten wrote:
Paul wrote:In other words at some point between when the Greeks originally transmitted the zodiacal symbolism to the East, and when the East transferred it back to the Arabic astrologers, did the Indian astrologers alter the meaning of the signs or the symbolism associated with them, which was then re-assimilated back into western astrology?
No, I don't see that they did. They brought in aspects of their own culture (such as Hindu deities and the caste system), but that's a different matter. Descriptions of the signs in Greek, Sanskrit and Arabic sources are largely similar.
Right that's what I thought. So we should be able to look at hellensitic authors or even the arabic 8-9th century authors (like you say MashaAllah etc. seem to be using a sidereally defined zodiac as far as I remember) and consider their symbolism as indicative of the sidereal signs right?

This is certainly what I've always thought, with that in mind they would ultimately be the same as the latter tropically defined ones as per Lilly etc. Albeit with cultural changes as have always occurred through time, but not any major changes generally, and certainly not in line with precession?

I realise you already made the point that you do not necessarily agree with Therese's view of the tropical signs changing meaning, but I just want to be clear that my own logic for disagreeing with this idea is also sound. Certainly this has always been my understanding, namely that the sidereal signs are, for the most part, pretty much in line with the tropical ones, albeit that we should aim to remove any obvious tropical symbolism.

Of course as I said before, I think it's difficult to truly separate the two zodiacs as, at least as I see it, the two zodiacs share a common ancestor whose logic was a hybrid of tropical and sidereal considerations.

What this means is that I should be able to look to, for example, my sidereal Libra ascendant, note my ill dignified venus in aries acendant lord and make some statement about this and perhaps my appearance and health? You mentioned in the other thread that this is something you routinely do - note the character and appearance of the individual and make sure it matches the chart.

22
As I said before, the western sidereal signs never jelled. There is no standard book on their meanings. James Eshelmans' book in 1976 was the latest. But there may be a sidereal web site out there somewhere. That's why it would be helpful if a few western sidereal astrologers knew about Skyscript and kept us posted on current views.
Eshelman has his forum which may provide some useful information as regards your unique views, as you describe them, on planetary and sign meanings.

http://solunars.net/viewforum.php?f=2&s ... e74881e908

23
Paul wrote:Right that's what I thought. So we should be able to look at hellensitic authors or even the arabic 8-9th century authors (like you say MashaAllah etc. seem to be using a sidereally defined zodiac as far as I remember) and consider their symbolism as indicative of the sidereal signs right?
I think so, yes.
This is certainly what I've always thought, with that in mind they would ultimately be the same as the latter tropically defined ones as per Lilly etc. Albeit with cultural changes as have always occurred through time, but not any major changes generally, and certainly not in line with precession?
No, not that I am aware of.
Of course as I said before, I think it's difficult to truly separate the two zodiacs as, at least as I see it, the two zodiacs share a common ancestor whose logic was a hybrid of tropical and sidereal considerations.
Yes, I would agree with that (though I believe the sidereal parameters had conceptual priority as far as the zodiac was concerned). It is a situation not unlike the problem of house division, which is also based on different (and sometimes conflicting) parameters: primary motion versus aspectual relation to the ascendant.
What this means is that I should be able to look to, for example, my sidereal Libra ascendant, note my ill dignified venus in aries acendant lord and make some statement about this and perhaps my appearance and health?
Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India). ;) Also, any planet in the ascendant will have a major influence and may trump Venus.

24
Martin wrote:
The original transmission of (Greek-language) horoscopic astrology to India in the first/second century CE was a one-way affair, or at least there is no evidence that I know of to the contrary. In the early medieval period, however, there was much more give-and-take between Indian, Persian and Arabic astrologers. So it depends on which period we are looking at. The Arabic-language astrology which entered the Latin west via al-Andalus in the Middle Ages had definitely been influenced by Indian astrology to some extent.
So we might speculate or assume there is evidence that a portion of Indian thought has made its way into later Medieval astrology via the Arabic texts.

Paul, I don't believe we can discuss the sidereal zodiac to any extent without including India's astrology. Here in the United States there seems to be complete harmony between tropical and Jyotish astrologers. Many western astrologers who have learned Jyotish routinely combine the two in order to communicate more effectively with clients.

There is no discussion of seasonal differences in philosophy or tropical vs. sidereal conflict. No one cares! The medieval Renaissance of astrology seems to have taken root mainly in Europe, though Benjamin Dykes makes his home in the United States. Personally I had never given thought to the concept of the tropical zodiac being based on seasonal philosophy. I've simply studied the signs as they operate in the horoscopes of individuals.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

25
Paul wrote:
Right but you're contradicting your own (or perhaps Fagan's) logic here. On the one hand you're saying there is no real tropical zodiac, merely a sidereal zodiac and the tropical astrologers alter their meanings accordingly. But on the other hand you're actually doing the same for the sidereal signs - rewriting them to match the tropical signs.
Paul, first let's keep my quotes separate from others. As I remember, Cyril Fagan believed there was only one valid zodiac for astrology, the sidereal. I didn't personally say there was no real tropical zodiac.

Let me try again. Picture a zodiac against the constellations along the ecliptic. That zodiac never changes. It's always in the same place. Let's say that Spica defines the point between Virgo and Libra, and the point in exact opposition is Zero Aries.

Now this zodiac path is divided into equal 30 degree segments. Each segment has a specific energy. Each segment is ruled by a specific planet. This never changes. The zodiac (sidereal) is forever fixed except for very small movement over long periods of time due to the proper motion of the stars.

The measurement of the tropical signs starts to shift over centuries with the spring equinox. From Fagan's point of view, there are no tropical signs. There is only the shifting equinox against the fixed sidereal signs. There is only tropical measurement. Any perceived meaning of tropical signs is simply coming from the sidereal divisions of the zodiac.

These sign characteristics have simply not been perceived to belong to the sidereal signs. So "borrowing" from the tropical signs isn't borrowing at all. It's simply placing the sign characteristics in the proper zodiac where they have always been. These sign characteristics never moved, but can certainly be overlaid with additional attributes over time due to cultural developments.

This WAS the early western sidereal understanding of the signs. There are so very few western sidereal astrologers left that the perceptions of signs tends to be strictly individual.

I tend to believe that certain sign characteristics have always been there, "fixed" in certain ares of the ecliptic. There is an article on my web site, "What is a Sign of the Zodiac?" That article would best describe my approach to the zodiac question. I would agree with Fagan that sign characteristics for which we have evidence have always belonged to signs in the sidereal zoidac. The are not "borrowed" from tropical signs. They have simply been observed in tropical sign divisions.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

26
Martin wrote:
Yes -- though, as someone with that exact configuration in my nativity, I would be quick to point out that detriment was not always considered a major debility (and still isn't in India).
This is an important difference between western tropical astrology and India's astrology. The planetary falls are similar, but there are no detriments. That is, the sign opposite a planet's domicile isn't considered a debility for the planet. Here is the reasoning as I understand it: If there is a planet in another planet's domicile (say Venus in Aries), and Mars opposes Venus from Libra, that can actually be a strength because Mars is being received in its own domicile by a planet positioned there. Likewise, Mars is receiving Venus in her domicile.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

27
Nixx wrote:
Eshelman has his forum which may provide some useful information as regards your unique views, as you describe them, on planetary and sign meanings.

http://solunars.net/viewforum.php?f=2&s ... e74881e908
Here you go, Paul!! There's enough on this site to keep you busy for a year. Thanks for finding this web site, Nixx. I remembered that James Eshelman had a web site, but couldn't remember the title. Yes, this would be the most recent and up-to-date take on the western sidereal system, and there are many discussions on the site.

Note: I personally am not a western sidereal astrologer. I practice Jyotish with a few twists, and the views on signs on my web site are strictly my own.

I don't know how much agreement Ken Bowser would have with Jim Eshleman.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm