The real astrological positions (a question)

Yanel said:

Thanks waybread, for explaining it so well! For the first time I understood something that has to do with the history and logistics of astrology(I mean, the technical part). But if signs and constellations are two different things then they would have different ways of affecting us and differenet characteristics. The Aries constellation wouldn't be the same like the Number 1 sign, it would have another interpretation, I guess...

Click to expand...

The ancient Greeks were great systematizers, and from them we get concepts of signs as male or female, belonging to a particular element (such as earth) or modality (such as cardinal.) Once you've got the chart angles, you can figure on a particular planet being in a house that is angular, succedent, or cadent. There is actually an awful lot we can do with signs based on simple principles without thinking of signs in terms of their namesake personalities, such as the lion as the king of beasts; or Libra as seeking balance. If you think also of the planets ruling signs (which originally was constellation-based) we can further see how Gemini (air) and Virgo (earth) both exemplify properties of Mercury.

You can read up on the history of the constellations and their meanings, or look for conjunctions with your planets and read up on the meanings of individual fixed stars. Look at the website, "Constellation of Words." http://www.constellationsofwords.com/

Sigh.... so much astrology, so little time! I hope you live in a place where you can get out and see the night sky from time to time.

Thank you waybread, for all the useful information! I do have diffuculties using and interpreting fixed stars in the right way and very often I just give up but not for good...I keep a little interest for future opportunities .

Bunraku said:

Wait what?

Why are we using the tropical zodiac then?

(I'm 2000 years late to the debate, sorry)

Click to expand...

Many western astrologers are simply unaware of the discrepancy

HOWEVER

VEDIC ASTROLOGY USES THE SIDEREAL LOCATIONS OF PLANETS

During the time of Claudius Ptolemaeus aka Ptolemy
and Hipparchus, Valens et al
when the sun crossed the celestial equator at the vernal equinox
it did so at approximately 0 Sidereal Aries
SO
2000 years ago
Vernal Point was in synch with sidereal Aries.

However, the Vernal Point is now out of synch with sidereal Aries
and
in the 21st Century when Sun crosses the equator as usual at the Spring Equinox
the Vernal Point is currently at approximately 5 degrees sidereal Pisces
and continuing to drift backwards towards Aquarius
(hence the dawning of the Age of Aquarius)



Therefore the TROPICAL Vernal Point is simply symbolically 0 Aries.
Aries is a Sidereal constellation.
When the Sun crosses the Equator at The Vernal Point at Spring Equinox,
it is no longer in Aries but is in Pisces. Times change

The astrology of the ancients
Babylonian, Egyptian
was sidereal and referenced to the fixed stars
and
for many thousands of years astronomy and astrology were one and the same
until the Greco-Roman Church-State astronomers began to record planetary ephemerides
referenced to the Vernal point in preference to the fixed stars
whilst maintaining that all heavenly bodies rotate around the Earth
a statement affirming Egoic consciousness.
Claudius Ptolemaeus (c. 90 - c. 168 AD) was employed by the Greco-Roman controlling faction.
Ptolemaeus was a mathematician, not an astrologer.


At the time of Ptolemaeus, to profess anything other than a Geocentric view was equivalent to heresy,
so only those willing to sell out to the manipulative ploys of the Religious/Political status quo
and proclaim the imposed "The Sun orbits the Earth" dogma of Old Testament/Biblical texts
were kept on the payroll.
Thus “Ptolemaic/Tropical” astrology
began in an age of suppression
and remains popular today.

The Signs of Tropical astrology take their names from the Constellations of the Sidereal Zodiac
which is based on the fixed stars.

The Signs of Tropical Astrology however are dependent for their LOCATION upon the Vernal Point
which is
(a) either of two points on the celestial sphere at which the ecliptic intersects the celestial equator.
and/or
(b) either of the two times during a year
when the sun crosses the celestial equator
and when the length of day and night are approximately equal
i.e.
the vernal equinox
or
the autumnal equinox.


Clearly both sidereal and tropical astrologers use 30 degree markings for the twelve constellations.
In that sense the two zodiacs have that in common
therefore if it is a criticism
it is a criticism that applies to BOTH tropical AND sidereal astrology.
The precise documented reasons
why the particular twelve constellations were chosen
and why 30 degree segments were then assigned
are no longer available and remain speculative.


The major difference that is non-speculative but provable by direct personal OBSERVATION
is when one views the heavens as ancient astrologers did
without the aid of computers
but by actually looking up at the skies visually
and making notes and observations
the difference then is marked

Ancient as well as modern astrologers
viewed/may view
the wandering stars, sun and moon
in the foreground of constellations
that are visible for those who wish to go outdoors
assuming clear skies
and confirm for themselves, directly in person,
whether the constellation of Pisces
or
the constellation of Aries
is actually rising on the Eastern horizon
just before sunrise
at the Spring Equinox
or not.
Tropical zodiac looks fine on the computer screen
but is in fact totally out of synch
with the reality of what is seen in the skies
by anyone wishing to go outdoors and check

dr. farr said:

Yes, all planets were seen
(and are seen)
travelling along the path of the sun
(the ecliptic),
and the 12 zodiacal constellations also touch this path
(the ecliptic)


Problem is that some of the zodiacal constellations only barely touch it,
with most of their "body" beyond it.
Another probelm is that there are (as I remember) 14 (might be 15)constellations which touch the ecliptic,
the 12 zodiacal and 2 (or 3) others (one of which is Orion)!

So the question now is, why were only 12 of these constellations selected?
Another problem is with the "size" of the constellations relative to longitude:
by no means are each of the 12 zodiacal constellations 30 degrees,
and there are some empty gaps between where one zodiacal constellation ends and the next one begins:
neither of the sidereal systems (Vedic rashi and Fagan-Bradley)
follow the actual starry-constellation "size" in their chart,
both systems enlarge and reduce the constellation borders,
so as to make 12 exactly 30 degree sections for each of the zodiacal constellations.

Now, do not think I am attacking the sidereal systems,
but just as tropical has questionable points,
so too does sidereal.
There are problems with both tropical and sidereal
IF we look at them from a mathematical/astronomical/mechanical point of view.


(Historical note:

Hipparchus and others knew and taught that the earth orbited the sun;
there was a model of this on display in the Serapeum,
adjacent to the Alexandrian Library,
which was destroyed by fanatic Christian mobs in the early 4th century;
also, Manilius - 14AD -
taught that the earth was round
-see his "Astronomica";

however, Ptolemy and Aristotelian philosophy taught the earth as the center,
and built their model this way;
of course, relative to the earth and its creatures,
it is in fact AS IF the earth were the center,
and of course Einstein put us back as the "relative" center
- any point in the universe can be considered as the "relative" center of the universe;
and, for us on earth at least, the earth is both the relative AND THE RELEVANT center of the universe
- TO US!)

Click to expand...

dr. farr makes an important distinction between
'SIGNS
- which are INVISIBLE '

and

planets, stars, star groups
- which ARE VISIBLE

'SIGNS are not things but are expressions of time and space'

dr. farr said:

One thing to note: signs are invisible,
they are not things,
rather they are expresseions of time and space;
planets, stars, star groups are VISIBLE,
because they are "things",
ie, things IN space.
The signs are equal divisions of the circle of the sky
(circle of space)
related to another invisible quality, time;
constellations are apparent
(geocentric)
groupings of stars, into sky shapes, of various sizes, which rise and set at various times.
The zodiacal constellations, when applied in measurement of longitude,
vary in size from 20 some degrees longitude
to as much as 40 degrees longitude,
and the fact is that there are gaps between some of the zodiacal constellations and overlaps (of up to 8 degrees) between others:
pure constellational astrology, then, would base itself on these facts:
however, neither Vedic rashi astrology
nor Western sidereal astrology,
accept these facts-they construct their systems so that each constellation is in a 30 degree area
and there are no gaps or overlaps recognized in either of these systems.
So the fact is that in a visual view of a particular zodiacal constellation rising at a particular time,
neither the Vedic system nor the Western sidereal system
would describe what one would actually see rising in the sky, at that time.

Note that I am NOT criticisizing Vedic or Western sidereal here,
I am simply pointing out that ALL the systems
(tropical signs, Vedic rashis, Western sidereal "signs")
present a different "picture" than what one would actually see in the sky
-but I also say that the invisible signs, as equal 30 degree divisions of the circle of space from the earth's perspective,
being perceptible only in the mind's eye,
would of course always have the same "appearance" in the mind's eye,
which is consistent with the nature of the invisible signs
as equal divisions of the space/time continuum from the Earth's perspective.

No one can accuse me of neglecting the importance of stars
(a nickname of mine has been "Fixed Star Farr"!)
and I DO consider that they are important modifying factors,
but in answer to TSMALL's question,
"its the signs, then, not the constellations that are (most) important",
I would say, "yes, that is the case":
in my little working hypothesis,
in the framework of MY OWN perception,
the signs (divisions of the circle of space/time)
are the "root"...for me
(until a new revelation comes)
this is what I consider to be "true"...

Click to expand...