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

Sidereal Signs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In your “Lost Zodiac” thread, you describe each sign with their traditional gender associations, alternating between male and female in accordance with the typical traditional scheme: Aries is Masculine, Taurus feminine, Gemini masculine, etc. (This is done via your use of “his” or “her” within each sign description.) However, you begin your sign descriptions by noting that “Taurus, not Aries, is the traditional leader of the zodiac”, and you conclude by noting that “Aries was traditionally the last sign of the zodiac, and not first as the moderns often believe”. (I'd interject that many traditional western astrologers actually are familiar with the MUL.APIN, for instance, and might feel their "tropical" viewpoint supported there.) In any event, wouldn’t this make Taurus, the "true" first sign, not Aries, masculine? Why wouldn’t all the signs be of switched gender, if we are shifting their order by one?


I didn't notice this. Thanks for pointing it out. Taurus is traditionally the first sign because back in Ancient Egypt when astrology was first formed it was the Age of Taurus (other sources say it was the Age of Scorpio though). That is where the traditional order comes from. But now that it is the Age of Pisces as of now Pisces is the first sign, Aries the second, Taurus the third etc. As for how the signs became masculine and feminine, I'm not entirely sure how that came to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1379
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
Quote:
However, you [Bogdan] begin your sign descriptions by noting that “Taurus, not Aries, is the traditional leader of the zodiac”, and you conclude by noting that “Aries was traditionally the last sign of the zodiac, and not first as the moderns often believe”. (I'd interject that many traditional western astrologers actually are familiar with the MUL.APIN, for instance, and might feel their "tropical" viewpoint supported there.) In any event, wouldn’t this make Taurus, the "true" first sign, not Aries, masculine?

The zodiac itself never began with Taurus. The zodiac was not invented in the Neo-Assyrian period (721-627 B.C.) when the positions of the planets and Moon were referred to in relation to 17 constellations that were described as "Gods standing in the path of the moon..." Yes, the first in this list of stars was the Pleiades, "The Bull of Heaven." But the Pleiades was not a sign of the zodiac. (p. 132, Koch-Westenholz)

The zodiac was first used in Babylonian astronomy in the 5th century B .C. The twelve signs of the zodiac were as they are today with Aries as the first sign and Pisces as the last. This has been noted by several authors including David Pingree. My reference here is Ulla Koch-Westenholz's Mesopotamian Astrology (1995), p. 164.

Cyril Fagan made some assumptions that later scholarship proved to be errors. Many translations of ancient texts we have today were not available when Fagan was alive. I'm not sure if those who still align themselves with Fagan's sidereal astrology are aware of recent scholarship. Fagan believed that the oldest 12 sign zodiac began with Taurus, but there is no evidence for that belief.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese,

you may be interested in Rumen Kolev's latest work ( http://www.amazon.com/Babylonian-Astrolabe-The-Calendar-Creation/dp/9521013451 ) which dates the "projection of the ideal year of MUL.APIN onto the starry sky" (p132) to 800BC at the latest. He proves this using the "Dodekatemoiria Rising Tables" which talk of certain dodekatemoiria rising as certain stars culminate. The book itself is a great read, and very enlightening.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deleted, see below

Last edited by Graham F on Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:41 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1379
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad wrote:
Quote:
you may be interested in Rumen Kolev's latest work ( http://www.amazon.com/Babylonian-Astrolabe-The-Calendar-Creation/dp/9521013451 ) which dates the "projection of the ideal year of MUL.APIN onto the starry sky" (p132) to 800BC at the latest. He proves this using the "Dodekatemoiria Rising Tables" which talk of certain dodekatemoiria rising as certain stars culminate. The book itself is a great read, and very enlightening.

Konrad, I'm always interested in anything Ruman Kolev writes, but this book is $80!! Can you perhaps give a short summary of an important point or two from the book, or a few short quotes as allowed by copyright laws? (Both of which might encourage me to shell out the $80.)
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Please realize that Bogdan's view of signs is unique to himself. He has combined symbolism from diverse sources without consideration of a theoretical foundation. I have dealt with sidereal foundation principles in my writings which I believe reflect the true nature of the sidereal zodiac. My work with the sidereal zodiac has been in process for many years (from 1974), and now incorporates principles from recent interpretations of classical texts. Bogdan is fairly new to astrology (Born in 1990---his chart is on the Solunars web site.)


Nope. I took my ideas from many astrologers, the majority of them are sidereal who follow Fagen and Bradley's school, as well as from the ancients (mainly Valens, Rhotorius, and Firmicius). And all of these sources are pretty consistent with each other. I wouldn't be surprised if other ancient texts validate them. You like relying on ancient sources, observations, and statistics. I have done them all.

Quote:
I have no desire to debate the zodiac issue with Bogdan. I only wanted to note that number symbolism is as important in the sidereal zodiac as in the tropical zodiac, but has not been considered by the Fagan school of astrology. "Male" and "female" have different interpretations in the sidereal zodiac as noted on my web site. In the discussion of each sign of the zodiac I've taken number symbolism into consideration.


Once again, no. The "male" and "female" ideas you show are yours, not those of sidereal astrology. It's pretty presumptuous to think so. It's like how when we talked earlier you said "observations are part of astrology", considering only the tropical zodiac to be valid.

And speaking of observations, now that I look back on what you and Chiria both wrote, it's pretty clear to me that these aren't careful or detailed observations at all. The both of you just internalized a lot of cliches from tropical astrology and never overcame them. You're mistaken. I even sent Chiria's notes to my friends and family to see if they matched their own observations. Their consensus is largely negative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1379
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham, would it be possible to edit your post and break it up into shorter paragraphs so it can be easily read online?
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1379
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan wrote:
Quote:
Once again, no. The "male" and "female" ideas you show are yours, not those of sidereal astrology.

Sun/Moon--male/female--odd/even numbers are universal principles and can be applied in diverse ways to astrology.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham F wrote:
Hello Therese
You are of course right that the fully fledged zodiac of 12 equal segments started with Aries, as it seems clear it first became properly established when the VP was firmly in region of the constellation of Aries, as you say. But this seems to me only to show A) that placements were determined sidereally, but that B) the equinox/solstice cycle was considered the key to the organisation of the year on earth. This is all clear and logical. What's not logical, it seems to me, is to go on calling Aries the first sign now that the VP is in Pisces. The structure of the zodiac would clearly make it start either with Taurus, Leo, Scorpio or Aquarius. Take anyone off the street who knows nothing about astrology except maybe his sun sign and show him a diagram of the zodiac showing only the rulerships. Then ask him where he would put the start of the cycle - I'll bet he'd say one of those four, probably either Aquarius or Taurus, because the symmetry of the structure is clear. If you then explain to him in a simple fashion how the sun is highest in the sky and the day longest at the summer solstice, lowest and shortest at the WS, midway and equal at the equinoxes, and then ask him where he'd put those four points, I bet he'd put them between Cancer and Leo, Aries and Taurus etc, especially if you told him something of the symbolism of Saturn. There is also quite a lot of iconographic evidence that the constellations associated with those four "fixed" signs were considered in some way as representing the cornerstones of the year (engravings in old churches etc of a bull, the sun, an eagle/snake/scorpion, and a tailed goat-like or crocodile-like creature). And there is also evidence that those constellations, or regions of the sky, were considered the cornerstones in Babylon. from what I've read. I think it casts doubt on the credibility of astrology to call Aries number 1 today. Reading Valens for example, who starts of course with Aries, putting the VP at 8°, I get the feeling that if he'd fully understood precession, he'd consider Pisces to be the first sign, today. For siderealists, althought the VP is still to be taken into consideration as a significant point, Taurus is certainly a much more logical place to start, in terms of symmetry and symbolism. And for tropicalists, who have disconnected from placing the VP in it's place in the sky and opted for a purely seasonal organisation, even more so.


That's interesting. So you're saying that to the layman who doesn't practice astrology the fixed signs are the most recognizable and representative? Regarding the constellations' relationships with the seasons in the past 3000 years I can see why the layman would make those associations. The Ancient Egyptian would associate the Spring Equinox with Taurus, the Summer Solstice with Leo, the Autumn Equinox with Scorpio, and the Winter Solstice with Aquarius. But around 500 b.c. the equinoxes and solstices were associated with cardinal signs; Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn. Now, nearing the end of the Age of Pisces, the equinoxes and solstices are in the mutable signs, Pisces, Gemini, Virgo, and Sagittarius.

So I'm not so sure the layman's observations will be consistent today as was in Egypt all those millenia ago.

Quote:
It's all Ptolemy's fault.


Pretty much. I know a sidereal astrologer called Eric Seligson who loves to bash Ptolemy. Can't blame him really. Ptolemy is to astrology what Aristotle was to astronomy and physics for a long time.

Quote:
BTW, Bogdan, the reason that Scorpio rather than Taurus was sometimes considered the first sign is surely because in ancient semitic cultures, the day was considered to start at sunset, and perhaps by analogy, the year at the autumn equinox. Using an analogy of house to sign (which really doesn't work with a zodiac starting with Aries), a Scorpio start works better than Taurus in terms of "natural" house "rulerships", e.g. Saturn, ruling Cap and Aq would be associated with 3 and 4, the most subterranean houses, etc. This arrangement of house significators is used, very successfully, by the Indian astrologer and teacher Krushna, though not surprisingly he doesn't break with orthodoxy to the extent of saying that Scorpio is n°1 - he says the natural significator of 1 is "Aries minus 6", etc.
Graham


I see. By those standards what signs belong to the houses now. Does house 1 still belong to Scorpio, house 2 to Sagittarius, house 3 to Capricorn, house 4 to Aquarius? Or did they change?

Because now it would seem that Virgo is in house 1, Libra in house 2, Scorpio in house 3, Sagittarius in house 4 etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Bogdan wrote:
Quote:
Once again, no. The "male" and "female" ideas you show are yours, not those of sidereal astrology.

Sun/Moon--male/female--odd/even numbers are universal principles and don't have an astrological origin.


True, but your interpretations of what "male" and "female" traits are and how they apply to astrology are unique to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1379
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan wrote:
Quote:
Once again, no. The "male" and "female" ideas you show are yours, not those of sidereal astrology.

The male and female traits are not mine, as I note on my web site. But, yes, the application to the sidereal zodiac is mine.

At present, Bogdan, you don't have enough experience (too few years) to be able to say definitely what the sidereal zodiac is and isn't. But fear not...additional years of study will help to form a cohesive sidereal picture. Well, maybe and maybe not. Seasoned sidereal astrologers still aren't agreeing on sign traits. Sign traits are still being mixed up with planetary psychology.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1379
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Graham wrote:
Quote:
You are of course right that the fully fledged zodiac of 12 equal segments started with Aries, as it seems clear it first became properly established when the VP was firmly in region of the constellation of Aries, as you say. But this seems to me only to show

A) that placements were determined sidereally, but that

B) the equinox/solstice cycle was considered the key to the organisation of the year on earth.

Yes, both could be true.

Quote:
This is all clear and logical. What's not logical, it seems to me, is to go on calling Aries the first sign now that the VP is in Pisces. The structure of the zodiac would clearly make it start either with Taurus, Leo, Scorpio or Aquarius.

The sidereal zodiac is not necessarily linked to precession. At this time I assume that there is one point or star that marks the beginning of the sidereal zodiac. This would be in the general area of anti-Spica which is close to the key star of Arcturus. (I'm referring to Edgar Cayce's statements on Arcturus here.)

Quote:
There is also quite a lot of iconographic evidence that the constellations associated with those four "fixed" signs were considered in some way as representing the cornerstones of the year (engravings in old churches etc of a bull, the sun, an eagle/snake/scorpion, and a tailed goat-like or crocodile-like creature).

Yes, that is true. The symbolism related to the four "fixed" zodiac constellations is considered primary in many spiritual and esoteric sources, even the Christian bible. But this symbolism doesn't necessarily relate to a working sidereal zodiac. The question is: Is the sidereal zodiac aligned with the stars in a certain relationship for all time, or does it "precess" with precession? I think that's what you're asking?

But it's the equinoxes that precess through the constellations, and this doesn't relate to a sidereal zodiac as such.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deleted

Last edited by Graham F on Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Konrad wrote:
Quote:
you may be interested in Rumen Kolev's latest work ( http://www.amazon.com/Babylonian-Astrolabe-The-Calendar-Creation/dp/9521013451 ) which dates the "projection of the ideal year of MUL.APIN onto the starry sky" (p132) to 800BC at the latest. He proves this using the "Dodekatemoiria Rising Tables" which talk of certain dodekatemoiria rising as certain stars culminate. The book itself is a great read, and very enlightening.

Konrad, I'm always interested in anything Ruman Kolev writes, but this book is $80!! Can you perhaps give a short summary of an important point or two from the book, or a few short quotes as allowed by copyright laws? (Both of which might encourage me to shell out the $80.)


Well the book itself is about datng the Astrolabe tablets, and is mostly Rumen comparing the positions of certain stars in the Paths of Enlil, Anu and Ea using his computer program and their positions as given in the Astrolabes.

The section on the Zodiac is a small part at the end. What exactly are the copyright laws? I will try to summarise that particular part within those laws, but not until Sunday at the earliest.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1379
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad wrote:
Quote:
Well the book itself is about dating the Astrolabe tablets, and is mostly Rumen comparing the positions of certain stars in the Paths of Enlil, Anu and Ea using his computer program and their positions as given in the Astrolabes.

I do have some Kolev material I printed out on the dating of the Babylonian Astrolabe to 5,500 B.C, and also Gary Thompson's critique of that dating and Rumen's reply. A fascinting topic!

Quote:
The section on the Zodiac is a small part at the end. What exactly are the copyright laws? I will try to summarise that particular part within those laws, but not until Sunday at the earliest.

Copyright laws usually allow small exact quotes, but anyone can summarize material from articles or books. It's the exact wording that is supposed to be limited. But astrology is awfully sloppy in that respect with long quotes from books published on the Internet, and entire articles copied.

I was mostly interested what you wrote: "He proves this using the "Dodekatemoiria Rising Tables" which talk of certain dodekatemoiria rising as certain stars culminate." I've been interested in further study of the dodekatemoiria for a while now.

I believe tables or diagrams can be copied or scanned, but I'm not totally sure of that.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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