16
Stefan wrote about Reveti (16?40' to 30? sidereal Pisces):
"They are sweet caring responsible loving friends. They nourish and care for others. They have been known to provide foster care for others, children or animals. They have an affinity or love towards small animals. They love humanity and society. They love to be social because they sincerely love connecting to other people. They don?t have a mean or jealous bone in their body. There is a love of fine arts and they can be creative as well. Their caring for others can lead to co-dependency. There is a deep devotion and faith to God. They are protected in all their travels especially the journey from this world to the next."

Reading these Reveti traits, two thoughts came to mind:
(1) Since these are traits said to be related to the actual stars in the sky, these same traits would also be in tropical Aries in (approximately) the middle decanate of that sign.

(2) Why do these traits apply to Sister Jacinta, but apparently not to Valerie Solanas (militant Lesbian feminist) whose chart was posted earlier on this topic? First I looked at the two navamsas:

Sister Jacinata's navamsa Sun and Moon in Scorpio go to her natal 9th house.
Valerie's Sun, Ketu and Mercury in Aquarius fall in her natal 12th house.

The ascendant lord in both charts is Jupiter. In Jacinta's chart Jupiter is on the navamsa Sagittarius ascendant, and in the 10th with the M.C. and Ketu in the natal chart.

Valerie's navamsa Jupiter is in Mars-ruled Aries, and close in degree to her natal explosive natal Uranus/Mars conjunction.

Then if we look at the Egyptian terms: (Which I use in conjunction with Jyotish techniques.)
Valerie's Ascendant, Sun and Mercury fall in the terms of Mars, Mars being with Uranus in Aries.
Jacinta's Sun and ascendant fall in the terms of Mercury, Mercury being with Venus (the exalted planet of Pisces). But this conjunction is in sidereal Aries, which seems to indicate that planets have a greater influence than signs.

Also, of course, the Moons are in different lunar mansions in the two natal charts. Comparing Jacinta's chart with Valerie's indicates the complexity of astrology needed for synthesis, and why it takes many years of study to even begin to master astrology. For myself, I've found it quite useful to use Egyptian terms in the sidereal zodiac, and then consider the placement and aspects of the ruler of each term that holds a planet. (Using the term ruler as a dispositor.)
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

17
Rodney King's chart (posted on this thread) has Venus, Sun, Moon and Mercury in Reveti. Jupiter, the dispositor of these planets is in Krittika, without close aspect, and two degrees from the sandhi between the first and second house (weak placement). But navamsa Jupiter tells more of a story as it is debilitated in Capricorn with Ketu in the 6th house. So this suggests that for the best traits of a lunar mansion to manifest, the sign dispositor should be well placed. In Rodney King's chart Jupiter also disposits the mansion lord, Mercury.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

18
There was a mistake in giving the ascendant degree by me. I am using 0800 website for getting tropical chart. I am giving here the tropical ascendant as got from that site: it is 16deg12 min Pisces.

Kindly check that site and tell me if i am not correct.

And regarding the navamsa chart, d1 should broadly indicate a person's life and it should be fine tuned using navamsa chart. Approx 75 % of the native's life must be present in d1.

regards
map

19
Map wrote:
There was a mistake in giving the ascendant degree by me. I am using 0800 website for getting tropical chart. I am giving here the tropical ascendant as got from that site: it is 16deg12 min Pisces.

Kindly check that site and tell me if i am not correct
Map, you didn't give a URL for the site. But I know the sidereal chart is correct, as different programs give the same ascendant degree. The tropical ascedant is in Aries. There may be some disagreement about standard time or war time, since the birth was in Pennsylvania. That may be why you are getting an incorrect ascendant.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

20
Thank you.

Website URL: http://www.0800-horoscope.com/

Since i believe that d1 is extremely important and next only the other d charts as these are derived from d1, i still feel the ascendant has to be pisces (with or without correction).

In the site of lightonvedicastrology.com of vaughan paul one of the members who works in hospitals) wrote that there is generally a wide variation in recording the TOBs.

I am only confident of the ascendant (keeping the native's life in view) and not the degree. Other d charts can be used later.

regards
map

21
Map wrote:
Since i believe that d1 is extremely important and next only the other d charts as these are derived from d1, i still feel the ascendant has to be pisces (with or without correction).

In the site of lightonvedicastrology.com of vaughan paul one of the members who works in hospitals) wrote that there is generally a wide variation in recording the TOBs.
The ascendant IS Pisces if you would be willing to consider the sidereal chart as valid. There is no reason the birth time of 6:13 a.m. wouldn't be valid. We can't make excuses for a birth time because the chart doesn't fit our belief as to what it should be, at least not when the chart fits like a glove in the sidereal zodiac. :???:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Re: Extreme Zodiac Sampling

23
Rather than reply on the other thread, I thought I'd reply here with my feelings about this kind of approach.
Original thread here:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=75

I'm quoting Stefan's post, Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:11 am.
Stefan wrote:Search for Sidereal Aries sun, Moon and Ascendant.

...

Ok that's all I have done so far. Maybe a thread later with more room for discussion about specific charts. Not so much research. More a fun astrological investigation. Thanks to David Cochrane.


S


I'm not sure why the implication is for these posts, but my assumption is that these are offered as evidence toward the supremacy of the sidereal perspective - namely if it walks like an Aries and talks like an Aries, it must be a sidereal Aries and not a tropical Taurus etc.

Quite apart from the fact that that isn't really the focus of this discussion, and that typically these kinds of arguments seldom lead to much good, I don't find these kinds of things compelling. I remember Therese doing similar things and in most of those charts, for example, Mars was angular etc:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8258

And too often when we look at these charts we find similar things. For example I'd have doubts over the ascendant of Joseph Gallieni - how many people do we know born exactly on the hour? With a just a few minutes difference, these signs of quick ascension can change pretty quickly, and it could well be this man was a tropical Aries rising as well. To quote another poster:
"The ascendant is extremely sensitive and one should be careful before accepting such border cases. "

And in fact it wouldn't take us long to find a similar character with, say, Sun, Moon, Ascendant in Cancer or something, let alone Aries or Taurus.

I think if we're trying to make these claims the only way to do it is to define some category which is crystal clear - such as achieving a high rank in the military - and performing a statistical analysis of at least a couple of hundred nativities of military personnel and see what statistical hits we have for those in the highest ranks, and compare against a similar sample but with a mix of professions to see if we still get these hits for military careers etc.

Until we do something like that, all we're really doing is picking a choosing a nativity which just so happens to conform with our thesis and isolating this nativity and implying it is a typical example when it may or may not be.

Whilst these things can be interesting, my view is that they need to be taken with a pinch of salt really.
Last edited by Paul on Tue Sep 29, 2015 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

24
Paul

I do share your wiews here.
This was not intended to be some kind of "proof" that the sidereal zodiac is the correct one. For me it was done initially done as a reaction to the aproach on the tropical vedic thread to post singular charts and then compare. Often with very narrow parameters. Such as posting a chart of a teenager with some physical problems and compare few astrological factors. Who knows what this teenage girl grow up to becoming later in her life as reflected in the whole chart.

Then a posted link about David Chochrane's (very intelligent astrologer) ideas came up in the thread. Which suggested to do a search for people with much emphasis on certain signs would be a more
valid aproach then posing singular charts and making claims.

So this is maybe a baby step in the correct direction.

Besides it is great fun to see which charts turn coming up for. With a
an 8th house sun, mercury and Jupiter I enjoy it very much. Here one is able to dig and discover and learn,looking at charts continually. It is also a way of learning things.

And as you say these things really don't prove anything.
But this is not an academic institution either. But a forum of astrological
wiewpoints and perspectives to be vented and discussed.


I recently looked for fun at two of the greatest stars in martial arts fighting.
Ronda Roussey and Alexander Gustafsson. I found it interesting that both had tropical mars with node in tropical aries. (sidereal pisces). They were born rather near in time. These things are fun to look at. But does it "prove anything" No.

25
Stefan wrote:Paul

I do share your wiews here.
This was not intended to be some kind of "proof" that the sidereal zodiac is the correct one. For me it was done initially done as a reaction to the aproach on the tropical vedic thread to post singular charts and then compare. Often with very narrow parameters. Such as posting a chart of a teenager with some physical problems and compare few astrological factors. Who knows what this teenage girl grow up to becoming later in her life as reflected in the whole chart.
I understand Stefan, my post, for clarity, isn't a criticism of your post but just more a hope that we can all work toward a community where we don't feel the need to compete our zodiacs, but equally find respect and understanding between those who hold other views. Of course our curiosity on the matter and our desire to explore both is never going to go away, and nor should it, so I understand why these things happen. I read a lot of these kinds of threads with great interest because of course it's somewhat the elephant in the room in a community which has astrologers of both persuasions. So I hope my post didn't come off as a rebuke or anything like that, just that we be cautious in any conclusions we might make from any isolated examples like this. I don't know if you saw the posts myself and Therese made on the thread I linked to it in my previous reply, I can't remember everyone who replied on it, but you'll see a similar approach where a given chart is isolated with a focus on some sign description, but we could argue some other placement, like an angular planet, is more persuasive etc.
Besides it is great fun to see which charts turn coming up for. With a
an 8th house sun, mercury and Jupiter I enjoy it very much. Here one is able to dig and discover and learn,looking at charts continually. It is also a way of learning things.
I'm with you there, and I have my fair share of 8th house placements too. I don't want to over-egg the pudding as it were, so I don't want to over-emphasise my point, but just make sure we all know that this is light hearted - this is as much for the people who are reading this but don't participate of course.
And as you say these things really don't prove anything.
But this is not an academic institution either. But a forum of astrological
wiewpoints and perspectives to be vented and discussed.
Of course, I say this only because some of the language used here may come across like a survey or systematic report of astrological placement via the ADB database, and so can have the veneer of studiousness, but of course my point is just that it's important we recognise these things don't really demonstrate anything other than talking points and things of interest to discuss - certainly they don't point to any evidence one way or another. And whilst you and I may know that, I know from experience that there will be those who read this and are blown away by all this and think it's essentially a statistical analysis.
When you consider this quote from Therese I think you can understand that many may see this as indeed being an attempt to provide evidence for some theory or proof:
"This search plus other zodiac searches I have done supports the energy observed in the tropical zodiac (This is the ecliptic area of tropical Aries.), but activities and interests relate more to sidereal sign lords. "


I don't discourage it at all of course, but I think it's worth pointing out that really interesting as it is, we need to not make any conclusions about the zodiacs from this kind of survey. That said, it could well be a starting point for further research if some interesting pattern emerges.

I remember discussing Hitler's chart with a sidereal astrologer, I can't remember who, it may well have been yourself or someone else on one of the forums, and realising that the very reasons he found Hitler's chart descriptive sidereally were the ones I found it compelling in tropical. He pointed out Mars in sidereal Aries rather than sidereal Taurus, and to me that was a boon for tropical for various reasons. So even if we eliminated the problem of the zodiac, I wonder even if we all used the exact same zodiac if we wouldn't approach the charts differently that may be even more interesting to explore when you think of it than the zodiac we use.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

26
Therese Hamilton wrote: The search in my files asked for the Sun, Moon, Mercury and Venus and/or Mars in Pisces. Out of the entire databank only 19 charts fit those parameters. (If anyone wants the data for these charts, I can forward data in an email.) I eliminated the homosexual charts that showed up in the search because I know from many other searches that gay charts will always come up in a search due to the large number of those charts in ADB.

...

Out of the huge database of more than 50,000 charts, there were only 23 charts that fit those parameters. As usual, I eliminated gay charts.
Hi Therese

I must admit, I don't quite follow why you eliminate the homosexual charts. Can you explain? You say because there are so many gay charts you removed this as a category. From this, I think you mean you don't want to imply that homosexuality shows up more than normal for, say, a stellium in Pisces.

If so, it begs the question, should you, for example, perform the same operations for each search but for each zodiac sign and then rather than list the results for Pisces, list which ones appear more or less than the average for, say, non Pisces indications.

I hope this make sense. Otherwise I'm not sure what logic applies to homosexual tags that wouldn't for any other tag.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

27
Paul wrote:
I'm not sure why the implication is for these posts, but my assumption is that these are offered as evidence toward the supremacy of the sidereal perspective
Paul, this is an example of a wrong slant placed on posts here on the sidereal forum. I don't know if I have ever used the word "supremacy" or "proof" in my posts here. Originally when I tried to post sidereal notes on the tropical part of this forum, some members went into "attack mode" rather than carefully reading what I wrote. So Deb formed a sidereal section of the forum where we could talk freely.

The sidereal zodiac has been poorly understood in the tropical community. So most if not all of my posts have been meant to demonstrate the principles of the sidereal zodiac, especially how planetary traits show through in signs. We all know that it may be a cold day in Hell before certain proofs for astrology surface.

We are having conversations and demonstrations here on the sidereal forum. We are trying to honestly explore certain astrological principles. We're not talking "proof" or "supremacy" at this stage of the game. Any tropical astrologer is welcome to post "extreme zodiac" examples of how the tropical zodiac works.

This morning I've only had time to quickly scan posts, so there might be points in recent posts to respond to later.

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