Sources of information on sidereal astrology

1
I am aware that Kenneth Bowser is soon to have his book An Introduction to Western Sidereal Astrology published by AFA. I believe the deadline is to have it ready for the UAC conference in May. I think this will be quite a significant publication in terms of generating more interest in sidereal techniques amongst western practitioners, but have come to understand that within the general definition of 'sidereal astrology' there are areas where approaches differ.

It would be useful to outline some of the most useful and accessible sources of reference for sidereal techniques. Please use this thread to make your recommendations of books or other sources of information on this topic (ie, YouTube videos, links or blogs). Please try to give some information on why the book or resource is useful, whether it takes a specific focus or covers a certain approach, and whether it is aimed at beginners or advanced students, etc.

3
Another thing that can be confusing (if one is not expecting it) about Eshelman's approach, is that he advocates clockwise house numbering. Here is his rationale, as outlined on his forum:

The key point in this model is that the series of houses is necessarily a clockwise cycle.

Consider that astrology, as a window upon the rest of Nature, reflects natural rhythms and cycles in human behavior. The series of signs is recognizably in the order Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc. because this is the order in which we continually experience the sign qualities due to the passage of the Sun, Moon, and (with periodic back-and-forthing) all of the other planets through the signs. In other words, each time we finish the experience of "Aries-ness" we can rightly expect to move into a phase of "Taurus-ness." Each year, the Sun and its inner-planet entourage reinforce this westward movement. Each month the Moon replicates it as well. The order of the signs is repeatedly reinstated in our consciousness, reinforced by a reiterated rhythm.

However, there is no comparable counter-clockwise pattern to the houses in nature. Every day, each planet rises, ascends to the Midheaven, sets, anticulminates, and prepares to reascend. The rhythm of the houses is clockwise. Every day, each of us experiences the sequential flow of two luminaries, eight planets, and however many other significant astrological bodies exist, passing through the houses in the order 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, ,5 ,4, 3, 2, 1 - a "countdown to selfhood." If there is to be found in the houses an orderly, sequential pattern - as I believe exists - it will most likely be found in following the path through the houses described by the planets themselves every day, even every hour, of our lives.


Eshelman is not alone in this approach. An English translation of a book by the late French siderealist, Jacques Dorsan, was published last year, entitled The Clockwise House System: A True Foundation for Sidereal and Tropical Astrology. As the title suggests, Dorsan advocates a numbering system which he claims works well with either zodiac - though he, like Eshelman, is an avowed siderealist. The book's example charts are cast in the sidereal zodiac, with Placidus houses (a departure from the more common use of the Campanus system among western siderealists - Eshelman among them).

Indeed

7
Don't think that Martin cares for me, as I panned both of his books. Martin might take comfort in the fact that his two books outsell my three. Anytime an author does better than his critic, he's obviously a better writer. And has a better publisher.

I got here this morning by roundabout means. Am finishing up an article on the murderer Elliot Rodgers (what, no Skyscript discussion?) and thought to do a check with AstroDataBank. Where I learned that Mr. Starkman had set a birthtime of 8:10 am. I know of Isaac Starkman but wanted to run him down a bit and so ended up here. Then for the fun of it I searched for myself and found a dozen or so entries, several of them from Martin. I came up with my own time for Rodgers, of course. I always do.

My best to you all.
www.AstroAmerica.com
Better books make better astrologers. Treat yourself!

Re: Indeed

10
Dave of Maryland wrote:Don't think that Martin cares for me, as I panned both of his books.
I've no opinion of you personally, Dave, as I've never met or spoken to you; but I will say that much of what you write makes you come across as ignorant and opinionated at the same time, which is never an attractive combination. It also tends to make one virtually ineducable. Your views on my book (I've only published one in English, apart from my doctoral thesis, which is out of print) don't enter into the matter as far as I am concerned, except as an instance of the above.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

11
Hello Martin,

I thought I had two books by Gansten in stock, one on Primaries, the other mentioning Blagrave, but can now only find the one on primaries. Apologies.

I am not an academic but a conceptualist. I am often a horse's ass as a result. I will change opinions on the spot when better work is shown to me, which makes me erratic and even more of the above. I wish I could re-write 3/4ths of my website, but cannot, which means I am condemned by my own words and deservedly so.

But I have dared what others have not, and while there are penalties, there are rewards as well. I left a note here earlier today because it seems you have made comment several times already, when there was no need to comment at all and which sounds like grudge work. I was amused.

If you dislike what I have written, if you feel I have been unfair or am mistaken, you are welcome to bring that to my attention. Aside from the home page, on every page of my website you will find two email slots, top and bottom. There is one at the top of every newsletter. I will respond. If I find I am wrong I will change my remarks and apologize, as I often do. There is, in fact, no better way to actually teach me and I have often profited and been genuinely thankful. On the other hand, if, after re-examining my work, I think I am right, I will defend myself. The exchange can be lively.

I do not call people ignorant and opinionated, nor do I parade a doctoral thesis or make claims about my qualifications. You are not to imagine I lack them. Make your grievances known, or remain silent.

Since you brought my work into this thread, wanna debate tropical vs: sidereal? Let's start:

On what specific foundation are the sidereal signs based? Ayanamsa will do only if there is unanimous agreement upon one single point. Otherwise we need a better rationalization and, yes, if properly presented, God Told Me So is acceptable.
www.AstroAmerica.com
Better books make better astrologers. Treat yourself!

12
No, Dave, I have neither the time nor the inclination for a 'lively exchange' with you. It's not a matter of dislike or a grudge, or of having a degree or not: you simply don't know what you're talking about a lot of the time, which makes it pointless (not to mention wearying) to try having a discussion.
Since you brought my work into this thread, wanna debate tropical vs: sidereal?
No, that is not what this forum is for, and I give fair warning that I will remove any such posts if and when I see them. Take them to the General or Philosophy forums if you like (but I won't be replying).
https://astrology.martingansten.com/