Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sidereal Astrologers - None Here?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sidereal Astrologers - None Here?

    This post piqued my curiosity: http://www.mysticwicks.com/showpost....10&postcount=2

    Why are there no sidereal astrologers here? Now, there may be a couple, perhaps the poster just made a general claim (entirely understandable), but why is it so few people (and I'm willing to define people as astrologers on MW to make this question easier to answer) practice sidereal astrology?

    Admittedly, I know very little about it. I know it its view is heliocentric based and about the precession of equinoxes, but that's all my memory can recall at the moment.

  • #2
    The easy answer is that the majority of Western astrologers study the tropical zodiac exclusively. Sidereal just doesn't have the same respect - which is weird considering that it actually tracks the true positions of the stars, instead of where they were 2000+ years ago. It started with Kepler, who belived that astrology was more about the geometry between planets than where they were in actuality. Some consider sidereal more "true" than tropical and there are vocal adherents for each system, but they *both* work, in their own way.

    Both can't be right, can they? (Well yes, they can.) In my experience, sidereal is better at predicting events, while tropical is better at personality predictions. In many ways it like the debate over house systems - so many use Placidus simply because it's the most common and not for any logical reason. The reason for the stubborn refusal of most Western astrologers to "change with the times" is that tropical is *not* based on planets going through actual, physical constellations. Tropos = turning, and tropical astrology is based on the turning of the seasons, and the path the Sun makes while it does so (the ecliptic). What makes it so confusing is that the two sets of constellations have the same names. If we changed tropical Aries to 'Bob' instead the confusion between its sidereal counterpart would be easier to sort out.

    There are several of us who know the basics of sidereal astrology, but I would never dare to set myself up as being able to interpret a chart using that system. I've got a lot more studying to do in that area first.

    But you've only got to wait about 24,000 years, when precession will sync up the two sets once again, giving us astrologers nothing to bicker about (yeah right).
    Astrology Forum Guide- Do you know YOUR planets?
    Certified Astrologer - AMAFA - through the American Federation of Astrologers

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Aidron
      This post piqued my curiosity: http://www.mysticwicks.com/showpost....10&postcount=2

      Why are there no sidereal astrologers here? Now, there may be a couple, perhaps the poster just made a general claim (entirely understandable), but why is it so few people (and I'm willing to define people as astrologers on MW to make this question easier to answer) practice sidereal astrology?

      Admittedly, I know very little about it. I know it its view is heliocentric based and about the precession of equinoxes, but that's all my memory can recall at the moment.
      Hi, Aidron - it's not heliocentric based (you can use heliocentric astrology with either sidereal or tropical), but it is based on the sidereal zodiac. What this means is that you subtract about 23 degrees from each of your planets' positions - so instead of being a Taurus, you might be an Aries.

      It's worth pointing out that most astrologers in the world are in fact sidereal astrologers, since Vedic astrology is pretty much the only astrology used in Inida. That's a nation that takes its astrology very seriously, and has a population of one billion souls.

      In the west, though, the most usual form of astrology is tropical. As Keishin says, they both work because they're addressing different areas.

      Vedic astrology has very different rules to Western astrology. There is a hybrid called "Western Sidereal" which uses western rules but the sidereal zodiac. There's a Yahoo group dedicated to this, but I can't remember what it's called, sorry! There's a great French-speaking forum that has a Vedic section at http://astrocours.free.fr/phpBB2_astro/index.php and a really nicely laid out Vedic site in English at http://www.ethericpark.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        Ah, very intriguing, both of your posts. Much obliged.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KEishin
          If we changed tropical Aries to 'Bob' instead the confusion between its sidereal counterpart would be easier to sort out.
          i have bob rising

          if you look into sidereal, go with the vedic version cuz they have some really sweet mythology and cosmology to go with it
          "My country is the world... and my religion is to do good."
          - Thomas Paine

          Myspace

          If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.
          - Gospel of Thomas

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by punxzen
            i have bob rising

            if you look into sidereal, go with the vedic version cuz they have some really sweet mythology and cosmology to go with it
            I tend to be fairly adverse to most things from India. The place, its culture, its mindset... we seem to repel like oil and water. If I ever get comfortable enough with tropical western astrology, I'll try to keep this in mind though.

            [points to Bob in his chart without fully realizing what it means]

            Comment


            • #7
              The tropical zodiac is based on the vernal equinox as zero degrees aries, not simply the position of the stars thousands of years ago.. although it does have that effect because of equatorial procession.

              gregorian calendars use a similar method of aligning themselves.

              One could argue it is more correct to interpret the zodiac in alignment with the stars.. on the same note, one could also say it's more correct to wrap the zodiac around the solar ecleptic synchronizing the vernal equinox with the beginning of the zodiac, since we are dealing with life as it is inside our personal collective reality (solar system). both make sense in thier own ways, and many believe both are valid in thier own respects.

              personally, the whole sidereal vs tropical debate was the first thing that clued me into the limited utility of the signs, vs aspects/harmonics/midpoints and the basic uranian understanding of astrology.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mercuric
                The tropical zodiac is based on the vernal equinox as zero degrees aries, not simply the position of the stars thousands of years ago.. although it does have that effect because of equatorial procession.

                gregorian calendars use a similar method of aligning themselves.

                One could argue it is more correct to interpret the zodiac in alignment with the stars.. on the same note, one could also say it's more correct to wrap the zodiac around the solar ecleptic synchronizing the vernal equinox with the beginning of the zodiac, since we are dealing with life as it is inside our personal collective reality (solar system). both make sense in thier own ways, and many believe both are valid in thier own respects.

                personally, the whole sidereal vs tropical debate was the first thing that clued me into the limited utility of the signs, vs aspects/harmonics/midpoints and the basic uranian understanding of astrology.
                All good points and I certainly agree, but I lean more toward tropical in the idea that we are focused on the microcosmic (the Earth) rather than the macrocosmis (our solar system), for the seasons are indeed a part of and more of a focus here on Earth rather than throughout the entire solar system.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Aidron
                  All good points and I certainly agree, but I lean more toward tropical in the idea that we are focused on the microcosmic (the Earth) rather than the macrocosmis (our solar system), for the seasons are indeed a part of and more of a focus here on Earth rather than throughout the entire solar system.
                  very valid

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mercuric
                    very valid
                    For me, yes, because it resonates with me more, and I say this so that I don't come across as denouncing sidereal astrology (which makes very good points in its own defense in truth).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      sidereal has some huge points in its favor, especially considering how obviously correct it seems -- it's the actual positions of the objects in the sky. and anyone who actually looks at the sky will consider it the obvious correct method! astronomers giggle at astrologers using "incorrect" positions.

                      but then.. the tropical zodiac lining up the sun/earth relationship on all four corners, integrating with the seasons, makes alot of sense too.. especially when you consider the holistic, cyclic nature of astrology and plantary cycles in general. the holistic approach says the actual positions are not relevent, but rather the position in the cycle of a relationship that matters (time, not space, that is).

                      this is why this debate may rage on forever.. both sides have such strong supporting principles and have worked successfully for many that have used them!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        yay, im home.. have bookmarks handy now

                        interesting site. the binary star concept.. http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/

                        quite the interesting concept for anyone familiar with traditional procession concepts.

                        anyhow, maybe by the time the sidereal and tropical systems oppose eachother in a dozen or so millenia, we'll have this all figured out

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mercuric
                          sidereal has some huge points in its favor, especially considering how obviously correct it seems -- it's the actual positions of the objects in the sky. and anyone who actually looks at the sky will consider it the obvious correct method! astronomers giggle at astrologers using "incorrect" positions.
                          Except, of course, that the same astrologers that ridicule astrologers for using the "wrong" constellations refer to the Vernal Equinox as "the Aries point" themselves!

                          The confusion arises by giving the same names to constellations and zodiac signs; and signs and constellations aren't the same thing. I did dabble with Western Sidereal astrology for a while; for me, it's pretty clear-cut. I have Saturn and Jupiter in Capricorn tropically, and these are both in Sag sidereally. Now, Saturn works very well for me - my Saturn return was fantastic, very positive and very Saturnian. I got promoted, got a lot more money, extra responsibility doing a job I loved and so on. That's Saturn in rulership (Capricorn) for you. Jupiter returns have been nightmares, though - and I have Jupiter in fall (Capricorn).

                          If the sidereal zodiac worked, my Jupiter returns would be fantastic (Jupiter in rulership in Sag), and there would be no reason for Saturn transits to be good for me. My Jupiter really does feel "afflicted" - which he is, traditionally, in Cap, and wouldn't be if he were in Sag.

                          I agree with Aidron that it's about seasons - we don't live in the stars, we live on earth. The stars are a handy backdrop to see where planets are, and most of our astrology really is about the relationship of planets to the earth.

                          It's interesting that the siderealists I've spoken to have said that they tend to use house placements in natal charts rather than signs - and of course these don't change much (if everything's shifted, then your house placements don't change). This suggests to me that that's because sidereal signs don't work consistently! On the other hand, the technique that really has convinced most siderealists tends to be sidereal solar returns. A lot of tropical astrologers don't have much luck with solar returns (even Rob Hand admitted that "sometimes they work, sometimes they don't!") and so I tend to precess solar returns now (I still use tropical signs when doing this, but it means the technique is very similar to sidereal solar returns) and the results do seem to be much more on the nail.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mercuric
                            yay, im home.. have bookmarks handy now

                            interesting site. the binary star concept.. http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/

                            quite the interesting concept for anyone familiar with traditional procession concepts.
                            Nope, I'm confused!

                            What would the Sun being a binary star have to do with precession?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Fluffmeister
                              Nope, I'm confused!

                              What would the Sun being a binary star have to do with precession?
                              the idea of the solar system orbiting something at a 26000 year interval is a challenge to the concept of the polar tilt causing precession.

                              if the solar system orbited another star or other local object within the galaxy, it would cause what appears as precession without the polar tilt "cone in the sky" orbit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X