therese,

thanks for sharing your astro thoughts on a couple of different charts here using the navamsa chart side by side with the natal while discussing the overlaps and what you must on some level consider important considerations. i enjoyed reading both posts.

i think any attempt to read a chart off the sun sign only would be a crazy concept. obviously one needs to consider all the components to a chart for an understanding.

are any vedic folks using the 45 or 135 aspects that you know of, or have they avoided exposure to the use of these aspects? the sun/neptune 45 in Rauscher's chart is why i ask..

the charts are approx 15 years apart, or 1/2 a saturn cycle. as we see in the chart - saturn is dignifed and rising in rauschers chart while it is debilitated and in the 8th in Jourets chart. both have a saturn/pluto connection - jouret the conjunction and raucsher the opposition. in jourets chart the cancer planets dominate his sun, but not by direct aspect, whereas in raucshers chart, the sun is in the middle of the two. 2 tougher type charts working out the process in very different ways which can only be seen with a more complete consideration of the whole chart.

the midheaven in rauschers chart is ruled by a benefic- venus which is conjunct another benefic - jupiter, which is also different then in jourets chart with midheaven in virgo ruled by a mercury squaring onto those planets in cancer in the 8th which includes saturn..

aside from these differences, i would be noting the very different position of the natal moons too - one in taurus (6th house of service) making an exact 120 onto a rising dignified saturn, while the other in scorpio in the 12th.. if we leave out neptune for a moment, the moons last aspect prior to birth would have been to this trine of mars in the 8th as well. seeing as neptune is the most elevated planet in jourets chart whereas mercury/sun straddle the midheaven in raucshers chart, they are again very different..

essentially jourets chart is a much more dangerous looking chart, depending on how he would have processed growing up and living thru the energies he was born into. one could perhaps say raucshers chart has a lot of challenges too, but many bright spots that are clearly not seen in jourets chart..

thanks again for doing some analyzing of 2 natal charts here at skyscript. it's refreshing!!!

James wrote:

are any vedic folks using the 45 or 135 aspects that you know of, or have they avoided exposure to the use of these aspects? the sun/neptune 45 in Rauscher's chart is why i ask..

James, thanks for reading, and for your additional comments. Any way you look at it, Rauscher has a prominent Neptune. Besides the 45 degree aspect to the Sun, it's conjunct Venus, the Sun's dispositor and conjoins the navamsa ascendant. (Any planet in close natal trine to the ascendant will turn up on the navamsa ascendant.)

To reply to your question, the 45 and 135 degree aspects aren't traditionally used in India, but with so many western converts to Jyotish, I expect they will make their way into India's astrological toolbox. Traditionally India has stayed with the basic aspects found in the older texts.

Yes, the Taurus and Scorpio Moons are an important difference in the charts. This particular set of charts conforms to the expected results of an exalted (Taurus) Moon and an afflicted (Scorpio) Moon in its fall. I'm puzzled as to why there isn't more chart analysis on Skyscript, rather than discussions which sometimes seem to go on and on without practical examples.

I think we always need an extra technique or two in order to distinguish one chart from another. The basic natal chart alone doesn't cut it. Western astrologers use midpoints or Uranian planets and minor aspects. Classical astrologers will use the lots. India uses the divisional charts, especially the navamsa.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
RodJM wrote:

How do we know for sure that the birth time stipulated on the certificate is actually the real time of birth and not just rounded up to the nearest say for example 15 minute block or something similar?

We cannot be sure of the precise minute in recorded births, but knowing a birth time within 5, 10 or 15 minutes is much different than having no clue to the hour of birth within a 24 hour period. In the great majority of cases we'll have the correct sign on the ascendant for recorded birth times.

Getting accurate info on birth times in a country like Australia is fraught with legal difficulties unless the individuals information is willingly supplied. We have a lot of privacy laws in my country, for example in the state of New South Wales, there is a 100 yr moratorium on all births in this most populated state of the country. After that time frame, it becomes accessible to anyone.

If anything, what I've done in my above post is pointed out the fallacy of tropical zodiac sun signs versus sidereal zodiac sun signs and the resultant career achievements. Would anyone knowledgeable about tropical zodiac sun sign traits guessed that some of Australia's most successful politicians had a Virgo sun sign in sidereal zodiac? highly unlikely I would say!
Virgo sun sign in tropical zodiac is not known for displaying strong leadership ability AND managing to keep the party loyalty...

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Sidereal Virgo isn't known for those traits either. Why do you say that a Virgo Sun is related to political leadership? Politics didn't turn up in the Sun on a Virgo Ascendant research I've done so far.

I'm not proclaiming anything as the be all and end all of the matter, its merely an observation I make about tropical Virgo sun compared to sidereal Virgo sun in the field of Political leadership. It may be a very small sample size, but for a "young" country (relatively speaking of course) it stands out compared to other outstanding political leaders in this country in either state of federal leagues.

As we all know on here, there is no discounting the significant importance of the Sun...

Therese Hamilton wrote: Actually the influence of the Sun often does seem to be discounted when considering the life's chosen work. I have a selection of timed charts with the Sun in the early degrees of sidereal Libra, similar to the chart you posted, Rod. I'll post those charts soon, and it will be possible to see how the influence of the Sun is deflected to other planets in the chart.

Yes, it depends on the interpreting astrologer and how they value the "weight" of the sun's influence on matters of career. However, at the end of the day or in the final analysis, one golden rule applies as far as I'm concerned - No sun, therefore no planets = no astrology or another way of putting it - one gives birth to the others which gives birth to astrology, overall. (If I could be so simplistic) sometimes the most powerful truths are tied up in the obvious..

Therese Hamilton wrote:
There are 79 timed charts in AstroDatabank, version 4 for "Heads of State." All Sun signs are represented, the highest totals going to Leo (9), Sagittarius (eight), Capricorn (10) and Pisces (eight). However, none of these totals has any statistical significance as 79 is too small a sample to apply statistics to 12 signs.

One problem I see with any of the birth data from AstroDatabank is that its main claim to fame is the fact that only "known" or "traditional" occupations are listed and mostly for northern hemisphere births. As we know these days, there is a huge variety of occupations all over the earth. For any credible accuracy in this database for the purposes of astrological research it should as much as possible, cover both hemispheres of the planet and not be skewed to northern hemisphere births despite the majority of population is in northern hemisphere. That is the way proper statistics are done, it takes account of anomalies like this.

Therese Hamilton wrote: (Skyscript prints an emoticon for the numeral eight, so I've spelled out eight for the totals of two signs.) The one possible significant sign number was for Libra: Only one person had the Sun in sidereal Libra out of the 79 charts. Virgo had a total of 6, similar to several other signs. Libra, of course is the sign of the Sun's fall. It's difficult for Libra to shine so that its light is recognized by others. Libra: the exaltation sign of Saturn. But Libra can excel in the theater or cinema by taking on another persona.

In my view, I think its because sun sign Librans willingly choose a lifestyle that's in keeping with the idea of "peace and harmony" and to hell with what any other sun sign "thinks" of that.

It only appears to be in its "fall" which is an illusion perceived by other sun signs due mainly to tropical zodiac biases as viewed from ancient civilizations that thought the earth was flat, and so in the setting sun, it was translated as being "weak" in Libra zodiac constellation. We can't use latitude all the time to justify Libra as weak, this discussion has as you know, been raised elsewhere on this forum, its northern hemisphere academic bias.

Anyway back to the point...

So consequently, other sun signs view this "worldly recognised career achievement" as being "weak" and avoiding life when in fact its quite the contrary. Libra sits in the middle of the zodiac, its like being in the eye of the storm eg. its peaceful and contented in the middle while all around you rages on trying to prove themselves.

The whole idea of modern western astrology has to be completely revamped to be relevant to everyone all over the earth, otherwise we will be arguing forever...

RodJM wrote:

I'm not proclaiming anything as the be all and end all of the matter, its merely an observation I make about tropical Virgo sun compared to sidereal Virgo sun in the field of Political leadership. It may be a very small sample size, but for a "young" country (relatively speaking of course) it stands out compared to other outstanding political leaders in this country in either state of federal leagues.

It may be that Virgo has a special relationship to Australia's national chart. Are there district charts for Australia? (As here in the US we have state charts.)

One problem I see with any of the birth data from AstroDatabank is that its main claim to fame is the fact that only "known" or "traditional" occupations are listed and mostly for northern hemisphere births.

Yes, that is a major problem with AstroDatabank. And it's also overloaded with charts of astrologers and homosexuals.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
The one possible significant sign number was for Libra: Only one person had the Sun in sidereal Libra out of the 79 charts. Virgo had a total of 6, similar to several other signs. Libra, of course is the sign of the Sun's fall. It's difficult for Libra to shine so that its light is recognized by others. Libra: the exaltation sign of Saturn. But Libra can excel in the theater or cinema by taking on another persona.

Rod replied:
In my view, I think its because sun sign Librans willingly choose a lifestyle that's in keeping with the idea of "peace and harmony" and to hell with what any other sun sign "thinks" of that.

Oh, I don't think sidereal Libra is "peace and harmony" at all! The scales of the law courts are the Libran symbol. So Libra will want a balance, and may use war tactics to attain its end of justice and equality. I think I remember reading in an ancient text (Valens??) that Libra can be a troublemaker. Venus, however, does like peace and harmony, but that trait isn't carried over to Libra.

I'll see if I can support those statements with some charts from ADB. Since Libra is the sign of Saturn's exaltation, Libra does often prefer to be alone or be only with a partner. Libra generally shuns the limelight which is a trait of Saturn. I like Robert Schmidt's commentary that a sign's planet of exaltation was seen as a co-ruler by Hellenistic astrologers.

Libra sits in the middle of the zodiac, its like being in the eye of the storm eg. its peaceful and contented in the middle while all around you rages on trying to prove themselves.

I don't agree, but I don't argue points like that. In general Libra doesn't like to be around groups of people. This is my observation. Jupiter, which is comfortable in crowds, has no relationship to Libra. Jupiter is exalted in Cancer (tropical Leo). Thus the Moon, which loves response from others, is quite happy to have Jupiter as its friend in Cancer. The older texts will tell you that the Moon solicits attention, not the Sun.

Therese Hamilton wrote:RodJM wrote:

I'm not proclaiming anything as the be all and end all of the matter, its merely an observation I make about tropical Virgo sun compared to sidereal Virgo sun in the field of Political leadership. It may be a very small sample size, but for a "young" country (relatively speaking of course) it stands out compared to other outstanding political leaders in this country in either state of federal leagues.

Therese Hamilton wrote: It may be that Virgo has a special relationship to Australia's national chart. Are there district charts for Australia? (As here in the US we have state charts.)

Maybe, further research will be called for no doubt, but that can raise another issue. When exactly did the event of "Federation of Australia" occur?

1. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900.
2. Royal Assent by Queen Victoria 9 July 1900.
3. Proclaimed 1 January 1901 in Centennial Park, Sydney, NSW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia

Take your pick, only solar charts could be drawn up with that info of course. Personally I've always had issues when events of this magnitude actually occur. How do we as modern astrologers define when an event does really occur?

One problem I see with any of the birth data from AstroDatabank is that its main claim to fame is the fact that only "known" or "traditional" occupations are listed and mostly for northern hemisphere births.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Yes, that is a major problem with AstroDatabank. And it's also overloaded with charts of astrologers and homosexuals.

At least we agree on that..

Therese Hamilton wrote:
The one possible significant sign number was for Libra: Only one person had the Sun in sidereal Libra out of the 79 charts. Virgo had a total of 6, similar to several other signs. Libra, of course is the sign of the Sun's fall. It's difficult for Libra to shine so that its light is recognized by others. Libra: the exaltation sign of Saturn. But Libra can excel in the theater or cinema by taking on another persona.

Rod replied:
In my view, I think its because sun sign Librans willingly choose a lifestyle that's in keeping with the idea of "peace and harmony" and to hell with what any other sun sign "thinks" of that.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Oh, I don't think sidereal Libra is "peace and harmony" at all! The scales of the law courts are the Libran symbol. So Libra will want a balance, and may use war tactics to attain its end of justice and equality. I think I remember reading in an ancient text (Valens??) that Libra can be a troublemaker. Venus, however, does like peace and harmony, but that trait isn't carried over to Libra.

Well, therein lies the problem, In sidereal school of zodiac sign interpretation, clearer defined definitions of sun signs needs to be established. Keeping in mind the approx 23-25 degree "backtrack" (approx 1900-2000) from the traditional tropical zodiacs sun sign 30 degree spans of today.

Therese Hamilton wrote: I'll see if I can support those statements with some charts from ADB. Since Libra is the sign of Saturn's exaltation, Libra does often prefer to be alone or be only with a partner. Libra generally shuns the limelight which is a trait of Saturn. I like Robert Schmidt's commentary that a sign's planet of exaltation was seen as a co-ruler by Hellenistic astrologers.

I think you'll get some western astrologers argue that traditionally (at least before discovery of Uranus) only tropical Capricorn and Aquarius can have Saturn, if we bring the concept of "co-ruler" into the discussion, then Saturn has 3 sun signs it has powerful influence over. So what about the rest of the planets, do they have 3 sun signs they have powerful influence over. Ask 12 astrologers and you'll probably get 12 different answers!... sigh...

Libra sits in the middle of the zodiac, its like being in the eye of the storm eg. its peaceful and contented in the middle while all around you rages on trying to prove themselves.

Therese Hamilton wrote: I don't agree, but I don't argue points like that. In general Libra doesn't like to be around groups of people. This is my observation. Jupiter, which is comfortable in crowds, has no relationship to Libra. Jupiter is exalted in Cancer (tropical Leo). Thus the Moon, which loves response from others, is quite happy to have Jupiter as its friend in Cancer. The older texts will tell you that the Moon solicits attention, not the Sun.

Fine, your entitled to your opinion like all us on here, but its getting into an area of contradiction about Libra, needs people versus doesn't need people. From a purely sun sign perspective, I don't like going into areas whereby it can be so simplified like this, humans are far more complex than that of course.
I have issues with so called "older texts" from any astrologer purely on the grounds in the relevance of there observations. All of which were carried out on there people, in there time in history and sociocultural framework.

RodJM wrote:

Fine, your entitled to your opinion like all us on here, but its getting into an area of contradiction about Libra, needs people versus doesn't need people.

Rod, I'm not sure where that is coming from. If you're referring to something I said, I never used the word "need." I said that in general Libra prefers a partner and isn't drawn to groups. That is a different concept than "need." More like a comfort zone.

Therese Hamilton wrote:RodJM wrote:

Fine, your entitled to your opinion like all us on here, but its getting into an area of contradiction about Libra, needs people versus doesn't need people.

Rod, I'm not sure where that is coming from. If you're referring to something I said, I never used the word "need." I said that in general Libra prefers a partner and isn't drawn to groups. That is a different concept than "need." More like a comfort zone.

No, I'm not having a stab at you, contradictions abound in all zodiac sun signs if examined in a holistic fashion. I'm just emphasizing that fact that sun sign Libra tends to mimic that paradox of human behavior whereby, we all have a need to be alone with our independence etc.. and at the same time, albeit in a myriad of ways, need the company or companionship of others or another.
This is a psychological phenomenon exemplified in this zodiac sun sign and played out to the utmost degree, hence the symbolism of the scales weighting one side of this situation with the other.

I bring psychology into it, because in understanding the totality of natal astrology, you can't have one without the other, they both describe the human condition but in different ways.

RodJM wrote

I'm just emphasizing that fact that sun sign Libra tends to mimic that paradox of human behavior whereby, we all have a need to be alone with our independence etc.. and at the same time, albeit in a myriad of ways, need the company or companionship of others or another.

You're being too general here. If there weren't different human behaviors that each individual was more comfortable with, there wouldn't be 12 signs and 10 planets. Obviously politicians, for example, are happy being before a crowd, shaking hands, often living a life of ceaseless activity and travel. (So then we look more deeply at sign symbolism.) That kind of life could drive others to the local psychiatric ward.

This is why it's important to understand the signs and planets. If Saturn is exalted in a sign, that's a reason to consider that sign as a more private sign. Then Venus comes into it (Libra symbolism) as comfort in a partnership or (considering the Jyotish view) karma that is meant to be worked out in relationships. Generally with Libra there is some kind of emphasis on partnerships, either chosen or accidental.

This is a psychological phenomenon exemplified in this zodiac sun sign and played out to the utmost degree, hence the symbolism of the scales weighting one side of this situation with the other.

Oh dear!! We really have to look at traditional symbolism here. Otherwise what is the use of symbols and archetypes through the ages? We can't just put our own spin on symbolism. From J. E. Cirlot's Dictionary of Symbolism (Philosophical Library, 1961)

Scales: This instrument, of Chaldaean origin, is the mystic symbol of justice, that is, of the equivalence and equation of guilt and punishment....The deepest significance of the balance derives from the zodiacal archetype of Libra, related to immanent justice," or the idea that all guilt automatically unleashes the very forces that bring self destruction and punishment. (page 279-80)

This quote gives us a small idea of how very simplified we have made astrology in this modern age. How many astrologers truly understand the symbols with which they work?? Considering Cirlot's definition, are we now beginning to understand why tropical Scorpio (that is, sidereal Libra) has a rather unfortunate reputation?! There can be a certain harshness to certain areas of sidereal Libra. Libra really doesn?t have much interest in peace. Balance, yes. Peace, no.

You see, one of the major problems with astrology is astrologers want to place their own interpretation on symbols. But an overall general education is so very necessary for astrologers because astrology is so very broad.

If it were up to me no one would be allowed to hang out an astrological shingle without at least a year's astrological history under their belt, and then another four to six years of general higher education (with emphasis on speaking and writing clearly), followed by another two years (or more) of specialized astrological study and research. (Including a 200 or 300 page dissertation of original research work.)

Well, obviously I'm out to lunch in today's world of astrology.

I bring psychology into it, because in understanding the totality of natal astrology, you can't have one without the other, they both describe the human condition but in different ways.

I'm sorry. This statement is confusing to me. I think you're trying to say that astrology must consider psychology along with.....??

Therese wrote: Apr 27, 2014 4:16 am

You see, one of the major problems with astrology is astrologers want to place their own interpretation on symbols. But an overall general education is so very necessary for astrologers because astrology is so very broad.

Therese, with all respect:

Like most of us, you are convinced of your personal outlook on astrology, and if your system works for you, that's great.

But do I need to remind you that, in so many cases, your own understanding of astrological symbolism remains by no means unquestioned - in particular by some of the very knowledgeable and experienced astrologers you encounter on this forum.

Interpretation of mythology and symbolism inevitably have subjective components to them because we are dealing with psychological matters here.

Furthermore, I don't see why ancient texts pertaining to astrological symbolism should be superior to or more valid than modern interpretations a priori.

Arguably, astrology is an evolving science and so is, most certainly, psychology.

If it were up to me no one would be allowed to hang out an astrological shingle without at least a year's astrological history under their belt, and then another four to six years of general higher education (with emphasis on speaking and writing clearly), followed by another two years (or more) of specialized astrological study and research. (Including a 200 or 300 page dissertation of original research work.)

Frankly, I'm glad it's not up to you.

Astrology is one of few fields of study where creative ?mavericks? still have a chance to reach an appreciable audience.

Your suggestions would just serve to make another elitist science out of astrology, more or less with a single standardized doctrine to be accepted by everyone.

I don't see the diversity in astrology as a problem but rather as expressing the wealth inherent to our science.

Additionally, in all fields of study and research (including astrology) there are pioneering ?amateurs? surpassing many a so-called ?professional?. However, their influence on mainstream science is severely restricted by their lack of academic credentials.

It goes without saying that, if these creative individuals were part of the academic system, they could hardly express their out-of-the-box views in the first place because that system punishes its dissidents by denial or removal of recognition and sometimes employment.

Personally, I would satisfy few of your requirements (in a formal manner).

For example, I am completely self-educated in astrology. But I don't think my posts are necessarily suggesting a lack of astrological knowledge or understanding.

Nor did I ever enjoy the kind of education in eloquence you are demanding - but, generally, I don't see myself as guilty of not speaking or writing clearly.

I am aware of occasionally making mistakes when writing in English, but please make a few allowances for a Native German speaker.

I am, by the way, almost completely self-taught in English as well. My skills in this language are, for the most part, a side-effect of reading English books (including many astrological ones) in conjunction with a fat dictionary. Conceivably, you would suggest that I would be making less mistakes in my writing if I had been formally educated but I would reply to you that I probably wouldn't have learnt the language to an appreciable degree in the first place that way.

Of course, you may look at such matters however you wish, but for purposes of balance I felt obliged to represent an alternative perspective here since many people are visiting this forum and could potentially get the impression that most of the astrologers around are silently supportive of your views.

Best regards
Michael

Michael wrote:

But do I need to remind you that, in so many cases, your own understanding of astrological symbolism remains by no means unquestioned

Hi Michael,

I'm going to be away for most of the day, and have only a few minutes now...so I just picked out this sentence near the begining of your post for now.

I don't think any of us has reached the stage where we can't be questioned. My own view is that astrology is in its infancy, and each of us is working with various small pieces of the puzzle. I only meant to point out that we need a broad understanding of many subjects (especially history and symbolism) to even begin to comprehend the vastness that is astrology. There is no area of creation that astrology doesn't touch.

More later.

Therese

Michael Sternbach wrote:It goes without saying that, if these creative individuals were part of the academic system, they could hardly express their out-of-the-box views in the first place because that system punishes its dissidents by denial or removal of recognition and sometimes employment.

This is really off-topic, but as an academic and an astrologer, I'd just like to say very briefly that, well, it depends. Academic culture varies a great deal, and, in my experience, Germany is one of the countries where it it can be at its most repressive. I hasten to add that, at the same time, Germany houses several projects which I greatly admire and for which astrologers have reason to be grateful, including these:

http://www.philosophie.uni-wuerzburg.de ... emaeus.pdf

http://www.ikgf.uni-erlangen.de/

Martin wrote:

This is really off-topic, but as an academic and an astrologer, I'd just like to say very briefly that, well, it depends. Academic culture varies a great deal, and, in my experience, Germany is one of the countries where it it can be at its most repressive. I hasten to add that, at the same time, Germany houses several projects which I greatly admire and for which astrologers have reason to be grateful ...

Hi Martin,

Your comment is fair enough.

I made a general assessment but, of course, there are academic institutions benevolent to alternative ways of research, and there are also a number of not so submissive academics who manage to survive in their environment nevertheless.

I don't think your comment is really off-topic, BTW, for Therese has raised this topic.