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

Number Symbolism and the Sidereal Zodiac
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1439
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:45 pm    Post subject: Number Symbolism and the Sidereal Zodiac Reply with quote

I have opened this thread as a place to discuss the role of number symbolim. On another thread Phil has asked about numbers in the sidereal zodiac:

Phil wrote:
Quote:
Interesting thread. My question to you (and anyone else) is about odd vs. even numbers. In antiquity, odd numbers were considered masculine, and even numbers feminine. This is almost universally noted. Numbers: Their History and Meaning, by Graham Flegg, gives a typical discussion of this in terms of Pythagorean theory. This can also be explored here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta16.htm Jim Tester’s acclaimed and widely cited academic work, The History of Western Astrology, also notes the masculinity of odd numbers and the femininity of even numbers as related to the zodiac.

_________________
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: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(moved at Therese's suggestions to this more appropriate thread)
Hello Therese

Sorry about the indigestible block of text. here it is more spaced out, with some additions.

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.

(Bogdan: I didn't mean this layman would say the "fixed" signs are the most recognizable and representative. I meant that it you gave this person the zodiac with planet-rulers in a circle cut-out, and maybe pointed out that the sun and moon are one side on the other side is Saturn, which has a more or less opposite symbolism to the sun, he would probably arrange the circle on the table with the lowest point being 30°Cap/0°Aq)

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 stick to his positioning of the circle with 0° Aq at the bottom, and put the solstice/equinox points between Cancer and Leo, Aries and Taurus etc, especially if you'd told him something of the symbolism of Saturn.

There is also quite a lot of iconographic evidence that the constellations associated with those four now-called "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, a tailed goat-like or crocodile-like creature, and a man, often pouring water). 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° (wrongly, for his time, as he was no doubt basing it on earlier authorities without fully understanding precession), I get the feeling that if he had fully understood precession, he'd EITHER consider Pisces to be the first sign today (if he thought his seasonally-coloured predictions about weather etc were the most important), OR, once he'd cottoned on that the VP had defintely moved out of Aries, and the sesaonal phenomena no longer corresponded to what was going on in the sidereal sky, he would have have rethought the idea of calling Aries n°1, and maybe looked to the structural arangement of the rulership scheme to decide on a theoretical starting point.

For siderealists, although 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 (halfway between the middle of Satruns domain, and between the Moon and Sun's). 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.

This question of where the starting point is much more important in tropical astrology than in sidereal. Apart from the question of what seems to work best in practice (sidereal for me without a doubt, long before I started thinking about the theory of it all), this seems to me to be a crucial flaw in the tropical system. That's what I meant when I said that for me, it tends to decredibilise astrology to say the zodiac starts (eternally, and today) with Aries.

It's all Ptolemy's fault (IMHO).

(Bogdan: I'm of course aware that the VP has moved and will continue to do so. I'm suggesting that EITHER we should consider the zodiac to start in the sidereal sign where the VP - or maybe the autumn equinox or the WS - OR we should stick firmly to the innate structure of the zodiac and say that it starts with Aq, Ta, Sc or maybe Leo. I'd go for sticking with the structure, and taking either Taurus or Scorpio, for all time, simply accepting that the solstice/equinox points move around from the "natural" first sign to the "natural" second, third etc).

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 the ruler of "Aries minus 6", of two "Taurus minus 6", etc. So mars doesn't "govern" but is general significator of 1, Ju of 2, Sa of 3 and 4, Ju of 5, Ma of 6, Ve of 7, Me of 8, Mo of 9, su of 10, Me of 11 and Ve of 12. Some of these seem a bit strange to modern Western astrologer, note, for example, that in Indian astrology, 12 is the house of "bed pleasures".

Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse wrote:

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.

Thérèse
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Graham F on Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese wrote:
Quote:
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.


It wasn't really a question. I do think it's think the sidereal zodiac is aligned with "the stars" (taken in a loose sense, and as a whole - not any particular one because of proper motion, burnout etc) in a certain relationship for all time. Of course I realise also that it's the VP etc that precess, which is clearly why we're stuck with Aries as the supposed first sign: becaus that's where the VP had precessed to when what e now know as astrology was taking place, and because of a confusion at that time between a sidereal and a tropical organisation, and notably because Ptolemy plumped for 0° Aries as the start (whereas Valens was putting it at 8° Aries, which even if wrong at the time, showed he was thinking in terms of sidereal coordinates. So tropical astrologers call Aries first sign as a sort of tribute to Prolemy and his time, a bit like new religions and ideologies start a new year zero. But I really don't see why siderealists should be at all involved here, there's even less reason for them to treat Aries as first. But it doesn(t really matter, as really none is first in a cycle, and the symmetrical structure ("solar and lunar halves") around the 0° Leo/0°Aq axis will still be there whatever.
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse wrote:
Quote:
The sidereal zodiac is not necessarily linked to precession.

I agree, I don't think it is. It's jsut tht it's often interesting to considier tropical points (VP, solstice points) in a chart, and to do so you have to situate them, sidereally.

Thérèse wrote:
Quote:
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.)

I agree with John Addey ("Harmonics in Astrology" is one of the the clear-headed and insightful astro books I've read), that a "fixed" point (e.g. star) cannot be the starting point for an equally-divided zodiac, which is by its nature a harmonic pattern - the stars are simple markers, approximate "aide-mémoires".

Addey, while favouring a tropical astrology, recognises that valid harmonic patterns can also give predictable results in a harmonic sidereal zodiac. and he says that any division, and hence starting point, for any coherent equal-sign zodiac, must be defined not by a point but by a great circle, as in tropical. For siderealists, he says the most likely candidate is the galactic equator (its intersection with the ecliptic at the galactic nodes, in early Sag/Gem sidereal).

I absolutely agree with him, and after much experimenting and thinking about this, and a few other more subjective indicators, I've settled on putting the North Galactic Node at 6°40 Sg, i.e. in the very middle of the Indian nakshatra Mula ("the root") (the equal, regularised harmonic nakshatra system of 27, ie 27 divisions of 13°20). The great circle in question, manifested by the Milky Way, also happens to be visible, unlike the equinox great circle of tropical, which is manifested by nothing at all in space, only in time, and the MW is in fact the most striking feature to be seen, in a clear sky. Being an aggregate of all the fixed stars in our galaxy, it is also much more stable than any given fixed star. Scientists have calculated and measured (visually and using radio signals) its location as being at 270° (0° Cap tropical) to be somewhre between May and November 1998 (a quick google search will confirm this),

This doesn't mean that I think Sagittarius is the first sign, just that the NGN is a sort of anchor. We shouldn't have to use ayanamsa, we imply that it's we who are "off-setting" rather than the tropicalists, and indeed some Indian astronomers have suggested a galactic-node based coordinate system to replace the tropical one. But we can ust this data to work out an ayanamsa to enter into our programs, and I'm not the only one, I think, to use a offset of 23°20 in October 1997. it works out at an ayanmasawith about 24' less offset than Krishnamurti, 30' less than Lahiri, halfway between Lahiri and Bhasin, much more than Fagan and much less than than Raman, and very close indeed to Babylon Kugler III.

But all this is getting very off topic, sorry.
graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse Hamilton wrote:
Graham wrote:
Quote:
It's just that it's often interesting to consider tropical points (VP, solstice points) in a chart, and to do so you have to situate them, sidereally.

I haven't used the tropical points very often in personal work, but I do think they're important and should go into charts for research--sidereally placed, of course! I sometimes look at solstice and equinox charts, but set them within sidereal signs.

Quote:
Thérèse wrote:
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.)

Graham replied:
I agree with John Addey ("Harmonics in Astrology") is one of the clear-headed and insightful astro books I've read), that a "fixed" point (e.g. star) cannot be the starting point for an equally-divided zodiac, which is by its nature a harmonic pattern - the stars are simple markers, approximate "aide-mémoires".

(Graham, you put the proper accents over my name!)

I've been a big fan of John Addey, but didn't remember his statement about stars. It's been a while since I read Addey's books. They're in my library. I've included his theories of harmonics in my article, "Signs of the Zodiac: What are they?" http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aharmsign.htm Yes, I believe that signs have to be looked at in terms of harmonics. These are also the basis for the Indian varga charts.

Quote:
For siderealists, [Addey] says the most likely candidate is the galactic equator (its intersection with the ecliptic at the galactic nodes, in early Sag/Gem sidereal).

I absolutely agree with him, and after much experimenting and thinking about this, and a few other more subjective indicators, I've settled on putting the North Galactic Node at 6°40 Sg, i.e. in the very middle of the Indian nakshatra Mula ("the root")

I can't recall who they are, but one or more astrologers in India suggest the center of Mula for the key point in the sidereal zodiac. There have been articles published on that point.

Quote:
(the equal, regularised harmonic nakshatra system of 27, ie 27 divisions of 13°20).

I'm not sure how this fits into what you are saying...?

Quote:
The great circle in question, manifested by the Milky Way, also happens to be visible, unlike the equinox great circle of tropical, which is manifested by nothing at all in space, only in time, and the MW is in fact the most striking feature to be seen, in a clear sky. Being an aggregate of all the fixed stars in our galaxy, it is also much more stable than any given fixed star. Scientists have calculated and measured (visually and using radio signals) its location as being at 270° (0° Cap tropical) to be somewhre between May and November 1998 (a quick google search will confirm this),

This doesn't mean that I think Sagittarius is the first sign, just that the NGN is a sort of anchor. We shouldn't have to use ayanamsa, we imply that it's we who are "off-setting" rather than the tropicalists, and indeed some Indian astronomers have suggested a galactic-node based coordinate system to replace the tropical one. But we can just this data to work out an ayanamsa to enter into our programs, and I'm not the only one, I think, to use a offset of 23°20 in October 1997. it works out at an ayanmasa with about 24' less offset than Krishnamurti, 30' less than Lahiri, halfway between Lahiri and Bhasin, much more than Fagan and much less than Raman, and very close indeed to Babylon Kugler III. But all this is getting very off topic, sorry.

Actually this is all very interesting, and in a way does relate to signs of the zodiac. The problem with an initial start point to a sidereal zodiac, at least as it's used in India, is that the varga or sub-charts have to work out. It's just not the basic 12 sign zodiac, but those sub-charts and also the 27 lunar mansions. It all has to synchronize together. And that is a LOT of research! I know, for example that the Krishnamurti navamsa chart is accurate, so it would be a whole new research project to test another sidereal zero Aries point.

I'm tired this evening, so am not answering in as much detail as I'd like.

Therese
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Graham F on Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse wrote;
Quote:
Graham wrote:
(the equal, regularised harmonic nakshatra system of 27, ie 27 divisions of 13°20).

I'm not sure how this fits into what you are saying...?

I just wanted to anticipate a possible objection that the nakshatra were originally 28, and were originally unequal and rather loosely delineated asterisms.



Quote:
Actually this is all very interesting, and in a way does relate to signs of the zodiac. The problem with an initial start point to a sidereal zodiac, at least as it's used in India, is that the varga or sub-charts have to work out. It's just not the basic 12 sign zodiac, but those sub-charts and also the 27 lunar mansions. It all has to synchronize together. And that is a LOT of research! I know, for example that the Krishnamurti navamsa chart is accurate, so it would be a whole new research project to test another sidereal zero Aries point.


Yes, that is a big problem. Fagan said they should be calculated from 0° Taurus. To get round it, I wouldn't use rulerships in DCs, and also I would only use the truly harmonic ones like the D9 (many are based on strange jumps ans so on). Though I do wonder if D9/H9 may possibly have come to be used so much, and as a sort of second natal chart, because it's count can be seen as starting at 0° Sg, Ar or Leo: so the first rulership would be the sun, at the "top" of the chart. H13 should also be explored, though it's not a common one - each sign always starts and finishes with itself.

Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse Hamilton wrote:

Graham wrote:
Quote:
Yes, that is a big problem. Fagan said they should be calculated from 0° Taurus.

Fagan said that because he believed the true zodiac began with Taurus, but now we know that the zodiac as such always began with Aries.

Quote:
To get round it, I wouldn't use rulerships in DCs, and also I would only use the truly harmonic ones like the D9 (many are based on strange jumps ans so on).

DCs...???

True, some of the Indian varga charts aren't truly harmonic charts. But taking the navamsa, for example, the way I've isolated the Krishnamurti ayanamsa is by precise degree overlap of navamsa planets to natal positions. This is a primary way that birth charts are distinguised from each other, particularly navamsa planets that fall exactly on natal cusps.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse

DC = divisional chart, since as you say, quite a number of them involve patterns which are not harmonics in the accepted sense. You can also thus note easily if its e.g. D10 or H10 (parivritti, around-turning, i.e. harmonic)

Your use of navama sounds very interesting:
Quote:
the way I've isolated the Krishnamurti ayanamsa is by precise degree overlap of navamsa planets to natal positions. This is a primary way that birth charts are distinguised from each other, particularly navamsa planets that fall exactly on natal cusps.


If you've got a very precise birth time, you could use it to test different ayanamsa. If you're sure about your ayanamsa, you could use it to rectify! But are you sure you're not tweaking the birth times a bit?

Also, I trust that you've checked that you don't get even sharper results if using the fixed signs as the starting post for the harmonic calculation? To do this, which will make the first navamsa of Ta-Le-Sc-Aq = themselves (rather than Ar-Cn-Li-Cp = themselves), you simply need to reset your ayanamsa with an offset of 13°20 (i.e subtract that from the ayanamsa, or add it to the vernal point for that year, so that all factors are moved forward 13°20'), and then generate a harmonic 9th from that, which is then to be compared with the original natal chart (before the tweaking of the ayanamsa). The degrees will be the same, only the signs will change. I haven't got time to look into more charts now, but just looking at my own, based on a very accurate birthtime, the original sidereal base-chart certainly gives more coincidences of degree-in-sign with the "fixed-base" (Ta-Le-Sc-Aq) H9 than with the Aries/cardinal based one (which doesn't have any, in fact).

I do find it surprising that sidereal astrologers should start with an a-priori assumption that Aries is the first sidereal sign, simply because it was the first tropical one when the system was getting established. Why not look at look at the internal structure of the scheme (rulerships, oppositions of planetary symbolism) rather than where the vernal point was 2000 years ago?

I will check some more navamsas for overlap when I have time. I suppose as a control, I'd better check what happens when the count starts from the mutable signs too...

Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse Hamilton wrote:

Graham wrote:
Quote:
Thérèse wrote:
the way I've isolated the Krishnamurti ayanamsa is by precise degree overlap of navamsa planets to natal positions. This is a primary way that birth charts are distinguished from each other, particularly navamsa planets that fall exactly on natal cusps.

Graham replied:
If you've got a very precise birth time, you could use it to test different ayanamsa. If you're sure about your ayanamsa, you could use it to rectify! But are you sure you're not tweaking the birth times a bit?

I don't generally tweak birth times. I suppose I might with involved research, but I've only looked at singleton charts or small groups of charts such as murderers.

Quote:
Also, I trust that you've checked that you don't get even sharper results if using the fixed signs as the starting post for the harmonic calculation? To do this, which will make the first navamsa of Ta-Le-Sc-Aq = themselves (rather than Ar-Cn-Li-Cp = themselves),

I would never sidestep tradition like that any more than I'd consider any planet but Mercury as lord of Virgo and exalted there. The Indian navamsa is very old, and very traditionally secure. I've researched it for more than 30 years. You are welcome to experiment as you like, however!

Graham, I'm saving the remainder of your post for a later answer when I have more time. Thanks for the discussion!

Therese
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thérèse wrote:
Quote:
I would never sidestep tradition like that any more than I'd consider any planet but Mercury as lord of Virgo and exalted there.

I wasn't asking you to sidestep tradition, just to have a control to verify it. If you choose just to take tradition on faith, that's perfectly valid and has to be respected, but it doesn't seem to be your case, as you adopt a more empirical approach, not just what's handed down:
Quote:
the way I've isolated the Krishnamurti ayanamsa is by precise degree overlap of navamsa planets to natal positions.

Whatever his other possible mistakes, Fagan was one of the first to realise that the Indian sidereal astrology of Varahamihira, Parasara etc looked suspiciously like Greek tropical astrology re-siderealised. Many other scholars now recognise this. So I don't think it's unreasonable, or in any way disrespectful, to compare different starting points for a harmonic calculation, since the Aries one looks suspiciously like one of these tropical influences, corresponding to a certain epoch.
BTW, to compare a fixed-sign based navamsa with the usual cardinal-based one (i.e to get Ta-Le-Sc-Aq as starts for the count), you can simply rename the signs on the Aries-based one: Aries becomes Leo, etc. Just as a control, not to But as you suggest, we're all short of time! If you're happy with your navamsa, great!
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote :

Graham, I have little time today, but perhaps you didn't know that I began my sidereal career in the Fagan school (Taurus navamsa), and after study and experimentation later moved to the Indian system. (Some of my published articles are in those early western sidereal magazines from the 1970s.) I even still have my original Fagan novien tables that I photocopied from one of his articles, so I'm familiar with the sign adjustment you mentioned.

All my life since being introduced to astrology in 1965 (!!), I've studied and researched the zodiac and techniques. I don't believe that one can question tradition until one has fully mastered a topic. And no one has fully mastered astrology as it is such a vast and comprehensive Cosmic study.

It's now commonly accepted that India's horoscopic astrology has its basis in Hellenistic and Arabic astrology. Way back then there was only one astrology which eventually branched into the tropical west and the sidereal east.

Cyril Fagan was a bit weak on history as he didn't have the advantage of the many translated texts we have now, beginning in the 1990s. If Fagan was alive today, he would have to revise a number of his conclusions about the origin of astrology and the zodiac.

Questions concerning the beginning of the sidereal zodiac would be an interesting discussion in light of number symbolism. This subject was introduced on this topic (Phil), but left hanging. I've started a new number topic on the sidereal forum with part of Phil's message, but no one has posted yet. Would you like to move your zodiac beginning sign questions to that topic? http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8162

Therese
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1439
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think what Phil was asking is that if the zodiac begins with a sign other than Aries, what happens to the number symbolism attached to each sign? For example, traditionally Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, and so first or One.

The Sun, the most important of the astrological bodies we use, is exalted in Aries. Sidereal Aries [tropical Taurus] as a sign is firmly rooted and often immovable as Isabel Pagan noted in her book. This is masculine symbolism. Number symbolism strikes at the very heart of astrology, and isn't a topic that can be covered easily or quickly. We really have to begin with some basic questions.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 519
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese wrote:
Quote:
I think what Phil was asking is that if the zodiac begins with a sign other than Aries, what happens to the number symbolism attached to each sign? For example, traditionally Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, and so first or One.

The Sun, the most important of the astrological bodies we use, is exalted in Aries.


You see, there are many ways you can look at things. And there are many different systems that have validity to them.

For example, in ancient Greek star catalogues, Leo is the first constellation. This constellation is marked by prominent Regulus which stands at a 90° angle to the Aldebaran-Antares axis and was himself one of the four "pillar stars" of the ancients.

If you are looking for an alternative place for the beginning of the zodiac, Leo could be your first choice also regarding the order of the traditional rulership scheme. The number 1 certainly behoves the Sun!

But again, this is merely one level of symbolical correspondence.

Quote:
Number symbolism strikes at the very heart of astrology


I couldn't agree more with you!

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Graham F



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 366

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Michael
Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion too. Regulus was definiteley a marker, as it's name implies and the leader of the four "royal" cornerstone stars (with Antares, Fomalhaut and Alebaran), which later came to mark the four "fixed"signs. One also feels that the first segment should be ruled by the Sun. 0° Leo is also the start of one the three (out of 27) Indian nakshatra which conventionally start at 0° of one of the 12 signs (the others are Aries and Sagittarius). (Though rulership of Magha, the 0° Leo nakshatra, is conventionally given to Ketu, the south node, while Krittika/Peiades, which straddles 0° Taurus, is ruled by the Sun, and was definitely considered the first of the series in the past - so the plot thickens!)
But the 0 Leo / 0 Magha overlay might suggest that the fitting of the 27 nakshatra into the 12 signs, which has been contested as an awkward compromise, might be appropriate - not firstly because of the perfect fit in Aries, but rather that in Leo.
It's also interesting to note that a 9th harmonic starting at Taurus (which is what Fagan proposed with his novien) also makes 0° Leo in natal fall at 0° Leo in the H9. So perhaps all harmonics "should" be calculated from Leo...
Graham
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
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