sworm09
Well-known member
Hello all, I wanted to post this thread as a discussion about the use the sidereal zodiac in Hellenistic and Persian Astrology.
The reason I'm posting this in the traditional forum is because recent reading has led me to consider a sidereal zodiac may have a place in the practice and study of Hellenistic and Persian Astrology. My intention isn't to dredge up the tropical vs sidereal debate, but raise a possibility for discussion and research. I'm not attempting to say that sidereal is original and better, therefore anyone who is using the tropical zodiac in applying traditional techniques is doing it wrong. I just ask that you hear me out.
So my area of focus is Hellenistic and Persian Astrology. My favorite authors are Abu Ma'shar, Masha'allah, and Abu ali. I've been using the tropical zodiac for years at this point. I've explored the whole sidereal thing, but focused on the tropical zodiac because my interests lie with traditional astrology. I kind of dismissed sidereal as being more applicable to modern sidereal astrology (ala Cyril Fagan) or to Vedic Astrology i.e. not compatible with traditional techniques.
However reading Abu Ma'shar and others closely, I'm starting to reconsider this.
Abu Ma'shar, when discussing his own birth chart, used a sidereal zodiac. Anthony Louis actually has a blog post about this. Masha'allah as well used a sidereal, rather than tropical zodiac. Abu Ali, I'm unsure about, but since he followed Masha'allah I have a hunch that he may have as well. It isn't until later on that more astrologers than not switched over to using Tropical almost exclusively.
What's even more interesting is that Valens, when talking about the signs, links fixed stars to their interpretation. He was clearly taking the stars that rose in or with the zodiacal constellations into account when talking about the signs. What's more is that his chart calculations are all sidereal. When we look at the decans, we also find that they were tied to certain stars, or groups of stars.
When looking at the tropical zodiac, I think it's interesting that Ptolemy created it, but it didn't immediately pick up steam. As mentioned before, the Persians were still using a sidereal zodiac, despite being aware of precession.
Once again, the point of this isn't to argue that the tropical zodiac is somehow invalid. The point that I want to make is that a sidereal traditional astrology isn't exactly out of the question. It seems to me that for those who are inheriting the astrology of the Persians and Greeks, the use of a sidereal zodiac isn't something that can be easily dismissed. The Persians especially knew about precession, but still decided to use a sidereal zodiac. My question then becomes why? Is there something about the fixed stars that fall within the sidereal signs that makes the connection worth maintaining?
I have yet to really test the sidereal zodiac out with a lot of charts, but I at least want to raise the possibility that for modern day students of Persian and Hellenistic astrology, using a sidereal zodiac might be something that's one the table and has decent backing in the tradition.
A for the last time, I don't mention this to start a debate about the merits of the sidereal zodiac vs the tropical zodiac. I'm more curious discuss the potential use of a sidereal zodiac for Hellenistic and Persian astrology. What are your guys thoughts on this?
The reason I'm posting this in the traditional forum is because recent reading has led me to consider a sidereal zodiac may have a place in the practice and study of Hellenistic and Persian Astrology. My intention isn't to dredge up the tropical vs sidereal debate, but raise a possibility for discussion and research. I'm not attempting to say that sidereal is original and better, therefore anyone who is using the tropical zodiac in applying traditional techniques is doing it wrong. I just ask that you hear me out.
So my area of focus is Hellenistic and Persian Astrology. My favorite authors are Abu Ma'shar, Masha'allah, and Abu ali. I've been using the tropical zodiac for years at this point. I've explored the whole sidereal thing, but focused on the tropical zodiac because my interests lie with traditional astrology. I kind of dismissed sidereal as being more applicable to modern sidereal astrology (ala Cyril Fagan) or to Vedic Astrology i.e. not compatible with traditional techniques.
However reading Abu Ma'shar and others closely, I'm starting to reconsider this.
Abu Ma'shar, when discussing his own birth chart, used a sidereal zodiac. Anthony Louis actually has a blog post about this. Masha'allah as well used a sidereal, rather than tropical zodiac. Abu Ali, I'm unsure about, but since he followed Masha'allah I have a hunch that he may have as well. It isn't until later on that more astrologers than not switched over to using Tropical almost exclusively.
What's even more interesting is that Valens, when talking about the signs, links fixed stars to their interpretation. He was clearly taking the stars that rose in or with the zodiacal constellations into account when talking about the signs. What's more is that his chart calculations are all sidereal. When we look at the decans, we also find that they were tied to certain stars, or groups of stars.
When looking at the tropical zodiac, I think it's interesting that Ptolemy created it, but it didn't immediately pick up steam. As mentioned before, the Persians were still using a sidereal zodiac, despite being aware of precession.
Once again, the point of this isn't to argue that the tropical zodiac is somehow invalid. The point that I want to make is that a sidereal traditional astrology isn't exactly out of the question. It seems to me that for those who are inheriting the astrology of the Persians and Greeks, the use of a sidereal zodiac isn't something that can be easily dismissed. The Persians especially knew about precession, but still decided to use a sidereal zodiac. My question then becomes why? Is there something about the fixed stars that fall within the sidereal signs that makes the connection worth maintaining?
I have yet to really test the sidereal zodiac out with a lot of charts, but I at least want to raise the possibility that for modern day students of Persian and Hellenistic astrology, using a sidereal zodiac might be something that's one the table and has decent backing in the tradition.
A for the last time, I don't mention this to start a debate about the merits of the sidereal zodiac vs the tropical zodiac. I'm more curious discuss the potential use of a sidereal zodiac for Hellenistic and Persian astrology. What are your guys thoughts on this?
Last edited: