Hi all

[cowtreat]

Hi, I am here to try to understand Astrology better. A lot of it doesn't make sense to me.

I really love space but I don't understand how Astrology works. I would really appreciate if people can tell me how it works. There are so many predictions and compatibility statements but I have no idea how astrologers come up with them. I would like learn enough to come up with my own hypothesis but that is a long way away I suspect.

I'm also really confused about the sign shift. I was born on July 11 and whenever I use astronomy software to observe where the sun was when I was born, it was clearly in Gemini.

I'm hungry to learn so I really hope people can help answer my questions.

[Mebs]

I don't know a lot of the technicalities but I do know for sure that pop astrology is not aligned with the actual orbits of the planets. I think it is more symbolic over all anyway, so there will probably be some conflicting info between astronomy and astrology.

Most would say you are a Cancer I think.

[cowtreat]

I thought Astrology was all about positions of the sun and planets. You are confusing me more. Isn't the idea that the position of the sun and planets affect us?

I don't see why astronomy should conflict with astrology. In Astronomy, there are many unknowns which leaves lots of space for speculation. Historically all Astrologer were astronomer too. Kepler was famous for both and now has a spacecraft named after him that is finding 100's if not thousands of exoplanets.

[cowtreat]

Also, how can I be cancer if the sun was clearly in Gemini. Please help me understand. It seems every time I try to understand, people make me more confused.

[Mebs]

Ok first off, I'm not that knowledgable on astronomy. I've learned astrology from books and websites. So I may be completely wrong, just an FYI, but here is what I've picked up.

I think at one time, astrology was done by looking at the positions of the planets, just like what you are saying, like 1000s of years ago. But as time went on, the real planets shifted in location, but the astrology kept using the orbits from when astrology was founded. It didn't take into account that planet's orbits shift over time.

So the popular astrology we have today, like what is used in the newspapers, is based on the orbits of the planets when astrology started not how they actually are today. If you look up the birth dates of the sign of Cancer in the newspaper, it is from about June 21st to July 22.

Because astrology was originally built on plotting the planets to gain meaning, there is a controversy that the planets in astrology no longer correspond to the actual planets. Some think the zodiac should be changed to what the sky actually is.

Because of this, there are many systems of astrology. Some take into account the discrepancy between the astrological orbits and the actual orbits of the planets and have changed accordingly. An example is the Sidereal Zodiac, under which, you would be a Gemini. Here is an article on what I am talking about just so you know I'm not making this all up

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

[cowtreat]

Thanks for the info.
Oh, so there are different types of astrology but only one actually uses the position of the planets.

This is a bit discouraging. I guess sidereal Astrology is the only one I should take seriously. The problem is that I don't see any of it on this forum.

I checked with my Astronomy software and you're right. 2000 years ago, I would have been a Cancer. It seems odd that after all that time, you would think that more Astrologers would observe the stars instead of just going on outdated records. Heck that long ago, they hardly even knew that the planets went around the sun.

[Mebs]

Well for what it's worth, I've found the traditional zodiac to be a lot more accurate. Maybe something magical is going on lol

[cowtreat]

That's pretty discouraging because I want to be able to look at the planets in the night sky and dream about how they are influencing me. How can I be connected with the natural world if I have to think about the positions of the planets thousands of years ago to affect me today?

[Mebs]

Well when you put it that way... yeah I wish it was the same too.

Here is the problem, there is no way in hell I am a Leo. I'm totally a Virgo. And the way you just described astrology all mystical like that, sounds a lot like a sentimental/romantic Cancer. It's weird but I've always found the first to be much more accurate.

Maybe the astrological planets are symbolic for something spiritual? I really don't know

[cowtreat]

My gut tells me I should go with the actual positions of the stars but everyone seems to think that doesn't work.

[dr. farr]

Originally Posted by cowtreat

My gut tells me I should go with the actual positions of the stars but everyone seems to think that doesn't work.

Wrong!
Vedic astrology (called jyotish) completely shares your point of view, and that system goes back at least to several hundred years BC, and is a major astrological system in today's world. Futhermore, although a minor aspect of Western astrology, the system called Sidereal Astrology uses the starry constellations and shares your point of view as well.

It appears that Western (tropicalist sign based) astrology does not "taste good" to you-doesn't click for you: that's fine, and no problem at all!
Study the wonderful and highly effective Vedic astrology; or perhaps look into the Western oriented but starry constellation based Sidereal school; you might well find what appeals to you, and therefore what you can work with and enjoy, in those systems of macro-cosmic analysis (ie, "astrology")

-Initial books explaining Vedic astrology which you might find of interest:

+"Ancient Hindu Astrology for Modern Western Astrologers", Braha

+"Light on Life" , Hauck, Svoboda

..both books easily available @ astroamerica.com (that site also has several books on Western Sidereal astrology-constellation based astrology-as well)

[cowtreat]

Thanks so much. Where did this tropical zodiac come from? It's so confusing because it uses the same signs as standard western constellations but in a different place. It's not like going to the tropics is going to change where the stars are.

The cool thing about being in the tropics is that you can see all of the stars. I spent a few years in Colombia and it was so cool to be able to see the sky I am comfortable with and all of the stuff in the south. When I was in Argentina, it was quite unsettling to look at the sky and have everything be different. It felt like I was living in the matrix.

[dr. farr]

At the beginning of the CE, the SIGNS (which are, and were, the dividision of the 360 degree ciricle of the sky into 12 equal 30 degree segments) and the ZODIACAL CONSTELLATIONS (that is 12 of the 14 starry constellations within the tilt of the Earth called the "ecliptic") were IN THE SAME PLACE; as time went on, the division of SPACE in 12 equal (fixed) segments,of course, remained constant; but due to the precession of the equinox (which was known to ancient sky-watchers at least as early as 184 BC) the starry zodiacal constellations MOVED (became "displaced") from the SIGNS; at that ancient time (2000 years ago)-actually before then-the SIGNS of SPACE and the starry zodiacal CONSTELLATIONS, bore the same NAMES, and had the same QUALITIES. That is how the difference between SIGNS and starry zodiacal CONSTELLATIONS began, when the zodiacal constellations displaced from the fixed segments of the circle of the sky (the SIGNS)

In the West, the SIGNS of the division of space, continued to remain in the same places (relative to the circle of the sky) In the East (India = Vedic astrology) the adepts believed that the starry zodiacal constellations were the actual sources of "energy" (as opposed to the fixed "sign" segments of the circle of the sky) and so they continually "updated" the places of the starry zodiacal constellations, to make their astrological calculations, and Vedic astrology continues to do so to this day.

In the 20th century, Cyril Fagan and others in the West developed a "Western" form of "sidereal astrology", basically taking this same "moving constellational zodiac" concept as the basis for "Sideral school" astrology.

Note: I am an eclectic in astrological matters, but for me the SIGNS have proven of most value-therefore I follow (mostly follow) Western tropical astrology (the astrology of the SIGNS of the circle of space)

[cowtreat]

Thanks, things are a little clearer. I really like the idea of things being updated. Often if things remain static, you don't know if everyone has been duped.

Why did you put updated in quotes. Is it done by sketchy people because nobody seems to trust it.

I still don't get the tropical signs. How do you find them in the sky? Is tropical just a name put on or does it have something to do with the tropics?

Finally someone is making sense though I still don't understand why everyone prefers the signs where they were 2000 years ago. What about the planets? Are they in their current locations or historic?

[dr. farr]

Updated is the best word I could think of for what they do, the term is actually called ayanamsa, but its like an updating, so that's why I used quotes.

Where are the "tropical signs"? They are equal divisions of the circle of the sky, Aries starting at the east point of the circle of the sky. The discussions involving questions and reasons for basing the background of astrological whole system models (different approaches to astrology) using these fixed segments of the sky versus the 12 moving starry zodiacal constellations, is very involved, and is certainly not definitively "settled" one way or the other.

The positions of the planets and the stars (as single stars) are always CURRENT (not historic) in all systems of astrology, tropicalist, Vedic, Sidereal, Chinese. But where the planets (and Moon) are RELATIVE TO THE BACKGROUND used, depends upon the model being followed: Western background is the SIGN segment of the sky, Vedic and Sidereal the starry zodiacal constellation (as updated for the year).

[cowtreat]

I am so surprised that most astrologers don't even seem to care where the stars and planets are now. 2000 years ago, not much was known about planet orbits. It seems like astrology really needs a makeover.

Maybe I can see things as someone new to Astrology with a wide open mind that has been indoctrination astrology by people who should question their teachers more.

So if I look at the sky, how do I locate the tropical constellations? Is there are chart that translates this? For the planets, it would be cool if I could look at a star and think, that astrologically, that is where say Jupiter would be having its influence on me.

Thanks for your help. You are the only one here who has made any sense.

[dr. farr]

There are no tropical constellations (there are only the starry constellations) The SIGNS are 30 degree segments of space; they "rise" one after the other, in order, on the eastern horizon of the sky pass over head, set at the western horizon, and pass under the earth, all in sequence from Aries through Pisces, to rise again at the eastern horizon. Since they are areas of space, you can't see them, but you can (with an ephemeris) know the time (at your location) where each sign (segment of space) is relative to where you are.

At the present time, following the Lahiri "update" of the starry zodiacal constellations, the starry constellation/sign of space displacement is 24 degrees: so the Vedic parameters of the starry constellation of Pisces ends up to the 24th degree of the segment of space SIGN (tropical sign) of Aries; then the starry constellation of Aries starts at the 25th degree of the segment of space sign (tropical sign) of Aries and continues through the 24th degree of the segment of space sign (tropical sign) of Taurus, etc, etc.

Saturn is currently posited in the 10th degree of the segment of space sign (tropical sign) of Libra; therefore relative to the Vedic parameters of the starry zodiacal constellations, Saturn would be in the 11th degree of the constellation of Virgo, that is, the starry zodiacal constellation of Virgo would be the "background" for Saturn, using the Vedic (and Sidereal) astrological model.

Just as the segment of space signs (tropical signs) can be above the earth at one time and then below the earth (meaning above or below the horizons) at another time, so too with the starry zodiacal constellations: depending upon the location of the observer and the time, zodiacal constellations may be above the earth, or might be under the earth.

Note: the above is just a very rough outline of the principles involved, but might give you a hint as to what is involved; you will need to read the literature (basics) of both systems (segment of space signs; "tropical" zodiac; and starry zodiacal constellations-Vedic and Sidereal schools) to really develop a better and clearer understanding.

[cowtreat]

cool, yes, I've been watching Saturn almost every night above and to the right or virgo's bright blue star, Spica. I love beautiful golden Saturn. it's so coolto think that it's largest moon titan is so similar to earth with rivers, lakes and mountains. It would be so cool to visit with beautiful views of Saturn's rings

[MelissaDaisy99]

Hi all !

I am new here, welcome all.

[Patsomes]

Im a newbie to this site. Astrology has never really made sense to me, however I starting to understand more as I open my mind to whats possible. I look forward to seeing where this takes me. By the look of this site and the number of dedicated members Im sure i'll be in good hands.

[Lazy Cat]

Oh man, you just got me all confused! I went to check my chart in sideral, and everything is in the previous sign.
My western chart makes sense to me. But the sideral makes sense too! Or maybe none of this ever made any sense. And I thought it did, cause I wanted it to. I'm going all skeptic now. Jeez... =/

[dr. farr]

Well, the charts either did make sense or they did not make sense, and if they DID make sense, then the question would be: why did both formats make sense? And the answer to that question, is very intricate, involved, and requires a massive study of the literature, in order to approach it. Sidereal is NOT an opposite hypothesis to tropical-if they were opposite hypotheses (propositions) then both giving results which "make sense" would lead one to question the underlying astrological proposition itself: but as I stated, starry zodiacal constellations versus segments-of-space tropical signs, are NOT opposites; rather they are each modulations of the same basic astrological proposition, relative to matrix (or background) influences (zodiacal constellations or zodiacal segments-of-space signs)
There are several insightful threads here on AW regarding the sidereal/tropical matrix (background) question (I have posted to some of them. You might want to use our "search" function to locate them for further information; input words like "sidereal", "tropical", and many of these threads will come up.

[cowtreat]

What doesn't make sense is that the systems are similar. A Gemini Sidereal and a Cancer western should have very similar readings but they are so different. I hate getting all these replies that things are very complicated and you have to learn a lot to grasp basic concepts. I seem to get that over and over. It makes me wonder if anyone understands what's going on.

When I have asked about complex Astronomy concepts, it's amazing how well I have been told how they work. The whole relativity Einstein thing is really strange to get your head around but a guy I met at work explained it really well. It's so amazing that scientists know how to travel to the future and it's not just a theory, they know it works. All you have to do is go faster than we know how to. There is this new super accurate clock called an aluminium ion clock. It's so cool that they can measure the difference in how time passes in your chest than in your head because of the slightly different force of gravity. They can also measure the difference time passes if you walk compared to if you stand still. It just blows my mind. I want Astrology to blow my mind too. There has to be something there but all I get is conflicting and confusing information.

I guess I'm a sceptic too. I'm not going to give up yet because I know 2 people well with the same birthday as me and they are so similar to me. I suppose it could just be that I make things fit in my mind but it seems so real. I have a friend who was born at almost the same moment as me. I call her my star sister. It would be nice if I could explain to her why we have so much in common.

[Lazy Cat]

dr. farr, don't get me wrong. I understand they're not opposites, in fact I can see a relation, cause each sign carries a part of it's previous sign (if that makes any sense). So, me being a Pisces (sun. western), I have a bit of every sign in me. Actually, everybody does. The birth chart has all the signs, but each person expiriences them in different ways and areas (houses). Some signs stand out, because of the planets in them, but we all have a bit of everything. So there. Seeing it that way, everything, anything, can make sense.
That's the thing with astrology. It either makes sense, so there must a reason for it, and you believe in it, or it makes sense cause anything fits, and you disbelieve it. I can go from one end to the other. But I do tend to believe it. So don't take this as an attack, or something. We're just sharing thoughts, here. =)

[dr. farr]

For both Lazy Cat and Cowtreat, I say this: you MUST read widely in the literature, to begin to get a grasp of this complex subject: Cowtreat mentions how well scientists have explained complex issues-well, those scientists spent YEARS studying the literature in their appropriate fields of endeavor, before they could be able to succinctly summarise aspects of their subjects, to novices.

Both of you should also remember that we are speculating about "reasons why" here in this thread. Personally I myself (while having certain hypothesies about "reasons why") could care less whether or not the various reasons are true or are baloney: I use the astrological MODEL only for one thing: getting reliable and accurate outcomes in analysis and in prediction. Now analysis (you know, like "read my chart") can be very subjective (typical horoscopic analysis of personality, character, things like that) But PREDICTION ain't subjective! What is predicted either happens or it does not happen. You want to put astrology (whatever system you choose) to an objective test? Then thoroughly learn about a predictive method (from Vedic sidereal or from Western tropical) and TEST IT OUT, and see if it reliably indicates correct outcomes at a level above chance. In other words, see if it works or not. That is the 'scientific" way: test it.
"Anything" won't "fit" in the predictive field: specific outcomes are predicted, and they either happen or they don't. Really this is the only fair way to test the fundamental astrological "proposition", theories of "why" it "works" are secondary to the primary objective of astrology, which is correct analyses and correctly predicted outcomes.
But to do any of this, subtantial study of the literature is a basic requirement, just as it is in any serious field of scientific/artistic/philosophical endeavor...

Here is a list of some of the best "how and why" literature regarding the astrological proposition: they don't instruct in how to do astrology, rather they look into causes, statistics, explanations, regarding the fundamental astrological proposition itself; they are all easily available either from Amason books or from astroamerica.com:

-Essays on Astrology: Robert Hand
-Astrology as a Science, a statistical approach: Urban-Lurain
-Sacred Number and the origins of civilization: Richard Heath
-Matrix of Creation, sacred geometry in the realm of the planets: Richard Heath
-The Cosmic Loom: Elwell
-Sun/Earth/Man: Landscheidt
-Sun, Moon and Earth: Robin Heath
-The Spindle of Meaning: R. Harvey