Tropical vs Sidereal observation

jg1982

Well-known member
I have an issue to bring up. It's just an observation.

I want to make the disclaimer that I am not expert in astronomy or astrology. My observation comes from my own critical thinking and opinions.

I am fascinated by the debates between tropicalists and siderealists. My personal opinion is that the tropical zodiac is more accurate, at least when describing me and my immediate relatives.

Personal point out of the way, I think there is one glaring omission (or at least largely overlooked) in this debate, as far as I have seen :

In following sidereal astrology logic, it is assumed that the fact that the sun seems to be in this or the other sign from our point of view, must somehow mean that the influence of that sign is actually being somehow channeled into earth by the sun. I think this is a flaw. It's very lineal thinking, in my view. The universe, human consciousness, and its connection, I would like to think, has more dimensions to it, it's not only lineal.

I hold a sort of mystical view that everything has some degree of consciousness and is ever-developing. In the case of planets and stars (actual sidereal constellations), they would be the physical manifestation of very powerful and evolved consciousnesses traditionally called Logoi. The latter sending their powerful emissions in every direction according to their own nature.

What's to say that the cyclical outpouring of this, or the other sign's influence, wherever the influence comes from, has nothing to do with alignment (from our point of view) of the sun against the backdrop of the stars from our point of view... like the Siderealists assume? What if there is a less obvious mechanism going on, that acts independently of the wobble in the earth's axis? If that theory is correct, then we would be dealing with Intelligent forces, surely, they would not depend on our "point of view" in order to work and interact with each other. This is my personal view. Doesn't mean I am right, or wrong. I am still refining my view on this..

I realize some people do not believe in actual energetic influence, but rather see the alignment of the sun and constellations as synchronistic markers of sorts, with zero actual influence from the planets and constellations to us. In that case, a better argument could be made against my stance, but to me that is not a completely logical point, since there must be some sort of "energy" keeping the synchronicity, there must be a source for the phenomena, an energetic one. There must be "something" holding the clock together in perfect rhythm and synchronicity. I find that sort of materialistic thinking kind of contradictory with the general concept of Astrology itself.

I subscribe to the axiom "As above, so below" I totally think it is feasible that just like humans interact with their different personalities, agendas, etc, then so it is at a higher, incomprehensible level in the heavens. Why can't the influence of the constellations be channeled by our "local ruler" (the SUN), filtered, somewhat, before being distributed to us via the traditional tropical Earth-Sun relationship, instead of lineally coming down to us according to our precession-dependent point of view like the Siderealists (intuitively, but in my view simplistically) believe? The view I hold is not new. What I hope to bring to the discussion is the questioning of the assumption that visually seeing the Sun in front of a constellation = we are under the influence of that constellation.

In my view, the Sun (in the traditional tropical way) would be the entity that would put those powerful sidereal forces in context for earth. It is like a marriage between the tropical and sidereal views.


Just for consideration...

Please do not take this as an attack. I am not the owner of the absolute truth and try to update myself every day. I just hope my specific observation can spark another angle of this old debate.
 
Last edited:

greybeard

Well-known member
Interesting thinking.

Your concern deals not so much with the two zodiacs most commonly used (there are others), but with the fundamental question of the how and why of astrology.

How can planets millions of miles from Earth influence (by whatever means, physical or mystical) a single creature born on the surface of the Earth, not to mention stars (or perhaps regions of space) hundreds of light years distant?

How is this "energetic force" directed to a specific place of birth? Two people born at the same instant of time but at different locations are not the same.

I happen to hold the "synchronistic" view (I don't like the term, but it will do for now) expressed by C.G.Jung as "Whatever is born in a given moment is of the nature of that moment". But I take it, perhaps, a step further and say that a person (or thing) born of a moment IS that moment made manifest. I define "moment" as a "particular location" in spacetime.

But really, I hold this view as a convenience to thought and not as some Eternal Truth. It is the best way that I have contrived to explain the mystery of astrology after 4 decades of pondering the question. From this perspective no energetic force (in the sense that modern physics conceives of energy) is needed -- and of course the materialists will rightly claim that this cannot be, because it smacks of metaphysics.

The only facts in the sky are the planets themselves. Signs, houses, constellations are all constructs of man's mind (originally devised as a means of locating the planets as they moved about the heavens).

The tropical zodiac functions very well without the presence of any fixed star. The sidereal zodiac cannot function at all without them. If the tropical zodiac works (and two millennia of use suggests that it does), then constellations and stars are unnecessary to astrology, although they may be useful supplements.

If tropical astrology works, then "the influence of the stars" must be attributed to something other than stars, constellations, or specific regions (directions) in space.

Astrology is founded upon the observed sky. What is seen in the heavens as celestial fact is translated into terms of human affairs through the use of analogy..."as above, so below". What is observed in actual fact on one level is taken to be "true" on all other levels.

We have the modern concept of "entanglement" to guide our thinking here. It is now observed experimental fact that, for example, two beams of light emanating from a single source are somehow connected (entangled) and "conscious of" each other even at great distance and without physical connection (except that each beam of light is "born of the same moment".) I don't think it is unreasonable to say that modern physics is coming to see that the entire universe is intimately interconnected by some means presently beyond our understanding.

Personally, I have no need to "solve" this problem, not even to explain it. As I get older, it becomes ever more clear to me that what is important is simply living in this moment the best I can. I will leave God's mysteries to God.
 
Last edited:

jg1982

Well-known member
How can planets millions of miles from Earth influence (by whatever means, physical or mystical) a single creature born on the surface of the Earth, not to mention stars (or perhaps regions of space) hundreds of light years distant?

In my opinion, there are two ways of looking at that question. From a physical standpoint, the distance between planets and stars seem mind-boggling, but I would suggest that the Sun, the planets, and everything in existence does emanate different forms of energy, sometimes very powerful energy, that travel immense distances, take light, for instance. It reaches us from hundreds of light years away, why couldnt other forms of influence we do not completely understand be the exception? I think it is possible.

The other way of looking at it, takes a more metaphysical slant. Metaphysical to me, in this respect, is just the name for something we do not understand/accept en masse, and/or mainstream science has not yet accepted. I see the possibility of higher intelligence(s) in the Universe. The limitations in communication and influence of such possible intelligences would completely be beyond our current knowledge. I am just open to the possibility that they can function in some higher capacity and dimension than we currently suspect.

About the synchronistic view: I am not totally against it, actually. I do believe people are born at the time they are "supposed" to according to their next step in evolution (karma), and that the space in time in question matches the incoming "soul" as perfectly as possible. Its a matter of the chicken and the egg. People are as much a product of the time/place as they are born at the time and place that energetically supports their vibrational signature, so really, its the ultimate synchronicity plus the energetic influence. Again, this is not "scientific" in the sense that it cannot be seen in a microscope, or proven by an equation, but it is possible and logical to me. Going deeper into that line of thinking is really beyond the scope of this post. What I do not agree with, is the dismissal of energetic influence from the stars/planets while accepting a sort of "disconnected" synchronicity between human events and the sidereal bodies. I think it is more of a stretch to believe that things "just coincide" while being physically and causally disconnected, than to suspect causality behind everything. Just my take on it.


We have the modern concept of "entanglement" to guide our thinking here. It is now observed experimental fact that, for example, two beams of light emanating from a single source are somehow connected (entangled) and "conscious of" each other even at great distance and without physical connection (except that each beam of light is "born of the same moment".) I don't think it is unreasonable to say that modern physics is coming to see that the entire universe is intimately interconnected by some means presently beyond our understanding.

I would suggest that entanglement is evidence of the ultimate physical connection between all matter, not a lack of physical connection. Entanglement, if anything would be evidence suggestive of energetic bridges that are easily missed by most of humanity's instinctive mechanistic view of physics no?

What I am questioning at its core is the assumption that because the Sun seems to be in front of a constellation from our point of view, it must mean that we are "under" that constellation's influence or in synch with it. I might be wrong, of course, but I challenge that a bit, I think it disregards other possibilities. I have heard time and time again "just look at which constellation is actually there".. but it seems pretty obvious that the Sun is not traveling through the constellations in the way that it would seem, WE are moving around the sun and the constellations seem to be behind the sun relative to our point of view, not relative to the Sun's. I think it is a bit egocentric to think that the Sun is in a constellation because that's what it looks like to us , as much as it was egocentric to think that the Sun orbited Earth at one point in our history.

In other words, the Sun is not subject to us but we to it.

I will agree that we should live in the moment, but I also believe that man has an inherent right and nature to question everything about the universe, starting with himself. I think that we partake in the nature of creation and we can endlessly advance in knowledge as a species a little bit at the time, and have a responsibility to do so. I think that at the very moment we look up at the stars and try to find meaning, we are already instinctively reaching out to God and his secrets, or at the very least to the Universe and it's secrets.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Personally I follow (a very minority) belief that the signs arise from the Earth, are "projections into space" from the Earth, and that stars, constellations, planets (here including Sun and Moon), etc are "modified" in their influences as these influences pass through each "window of the Earth", ie as their influences pass through each sign...
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Interesting thinking.

Your concern deals not so much with the two zodiacs most commonly used (there are others), but with the fundamental question of the how and why of astrology.

How can planets millions of miles from Earth influence (by whatever means, physical or mystical) a single creature born on the surface of the Earth, not to mention stars (or perhaps regions of space) hundreds of light years distant?

How is this "energetic force" directed to a specific place of birth? Two people born at the same instant of time but at different locations are not the same.

I happen to hold the "synchronistic" view (I don't like the term, but it will do for now) expressed by C.G.Jung as "Whatever is born in a given moment is of the nature of that moment". But I take it, perhaps, a step further and say that a person (or thing) born of a moment IS that moment made manifest. I define "moment" as a "particular location" in spacetime.

But really, I hold this view as a convenience to thought and not as some Eternal Truth. It is the best way that I have contrived to explain the mystery of astrology after 4 decades of pondering the question. From this perspective no energetic force (in the sense that modern physics conceives of energy) is needed -- and of course the materialists will rightly claim that this cannot be, because it smacks of metaphysics.

The only facts in the sky are the planets themselves. Signs, houses, constellations are all constructs of man's mind (originally devised as a means of locating the planets as they moved about the heavens).

The tropical zodiac functions very well without the presence of any fixed star. The sidereal zodiac cannot function at all without them. If the tropical zodiac works (and two millennia of use suggests that it does), then constellations and stars are unnecessary to astrology, although they may be useful supplements.

If tropical astrology works, then "the influence of the stars" must be attributed to something other than stars, constellations, or specific regions (directions) in space.

Astrology is founded upon the observed sky. What is seen in the heavens as celestial fact is translated into terms of human affairs through the use of analogy..."as above, so below". What is observed in actual fact on one level is taken to be "true" on all other levels.

We have the modern concept of "entanglement" to guide our thinking here. It is now observed experimental fact that, for example, two beams of light emanating from a single source are somehow connected (entangled) and "conscious of" each other even at great distance and without physical connection (except that each beam of light is "born of the same moment".) I don't think it is unreasonable to say that modern physics is coming to see that the entire universe is intimately interconnected by some means presently beyond our understanding.

Personally, I have no need to "solve" this problem, not even to explain it. As I get older, it becomes ever more clear to me that what is important is simply living in this moment the best I can. I will leave God's mysteries to God.
If 'astrology is founded upon the observed sky'
and since, for millennia, 'the observed sky' is Sidereal in nature
i.e.
measured or determined by means of the apparent daily motion of the stars

and since

LATIN
sider = star

and furthermore
since it is incontrovertible that the ancients observed the stars
then quite clearly
the stars and astrology are inextricable


the evidence is very clear in fact
because
the very word 'astrology' is derived from two words
'astro' and 'logy'

Latin, aster,
from Greek aster-, astēr star, aster = star

and

'-logy' is from Greek -logi
from logos = word, speech

so

'astrology' is clearly associated with 'stars'


and therefore
to deny that the stars are a necessary requisite of the practice of astrology
despite the clearly deep-rooted meaning of the word 'astrology'
seems a blinkered attitude




Certainly, the Tropical Zodiac focuses on the Sun
and excludes fixed stars

Whereas the Sidereal Zodiac focuses on the Sun IN RELATION TO THE FIXED STARS

HOWEVER

clearly the evidence shows
BOTH methods provide excellent results


The Sidereal Zodiac and The Tropical Zodiac are simply different approaches
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=related


and
although the Sidereal Zodiac 'cannot function WITHOUT the fixed stars'
The Tropical Zodiac 'cannot function WITH the fixed stars'


Quite clearly then
The Tropical Zodiac and The Sidereal Zodiac are simply two different PERSPECTIVES OF MEASUREMENT




The Tropical Zodiac has its uses

and

The Sidereal Zodiac has its uses

In my opinion the Hitler sidereal delineation was very accurate: BUT SO IS THE EXTENSIVE HITLER TROPICAL DELINEATION,found in several of his books, by pioneer Modernist Charles Carter.

In fact, there a numerous points of agreement between the tropical Carter delineation (done in the 1930's and further with progression analysis, in the 1950's) and the sidereal anaylsis found in this thread. Why do both contain much accuracy, if one matrix is right and the other matrix is wrong?

ANSWER: because neither is right and neither is wrong,
because IN EXPERT HANDS
correct indications can be determined through EITHER whole system model (my opinion)

Me?
I prefer the tropical model,
but
I simply have seen too much + evidence
to knock the sidereal model.


And, with that, I withdraw from participation in this thread:happy:....
For the ancients
'the stars' were either

'Fixed Stars'
http://constellationsofwords.com/Fixedstars.htm

or alternatively

'Wandering Stars'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbiRDNaDeo



Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn were known as 'the wandering stars'




'Ancient astrologers' observed BOTH fixed AND wandering stars

and based their delineations on BOTH forms of stars :smile:


By the way,

OUR SUN IS A STAR
 

jg1982

Well-known member
Yes I see both points...

What if there is a bit of truth to both? I do not mean truth to the fact that I am both Scorpio (tropical) and Libra (sidereal) because that does not make sense to me at this point.

I mean what if the stars, constellations, planets, suns AND even our own planet earth, etc., ARE the source of influence that makes Astrology "work" (of Sidereal origin) BUT their influence is somehow filtered by our Sun and our own Earth (Dr. Farr's projection) and hence becomes "Tropical" in it's practical application to us?

That is kind of where I am at with this issue. The main reason for me to not accept the Sidereal view is that I flat out do not resonate with my Sidereal chart whatsoever. And, no, it's not a matter of "I wanna be a Scorpio rather than a Libra".. it's just that objectively, I cannot see how I am a Libra, with moon in Virgo, ascendant Scorpio. On the other hand, I can totally see how I am a Scorpio, with moon in Libra ASC Sagittarius.


The two main selling points for me are that I so not see the Virgo in me at all, but I DO behave and feel in a very Sagittarian way. In my sidereal chart, I would have very little sagittarian influence, while in the tropical it is my ascendant! The same goes for everyone around me, my dad is definitely a Leo, and my mom is definitely a Pisces. I just cannot imagine them being Cancer and Aquarius respectively.

The other one is that common practice Sidereal Astrology is not truly Sidereal, is it? It divides the constellations neatly into 30 degrees each, which astronomically is not correct. It also leaves out Ophiuchus. So, where is 0 point Aries exactly? Sun is "in" Scorpio only 7 days and in Virgo 40 days, does that mean there are 5 times more Virgos in the world than Scorpios? Astronomically, the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs were never and will NEVER be perfectly in synch, for the simple reason of constellation size vs sign size. So, the theory that the two Zodiacs matched 2000 years ago, and that Tropical Astrology was somehow born out of that coincidence seems suspect.


I still think the origin of the Zodiac and planetary influences does originate in the heavens.. I agree with that. I just question the assumptions made about HOW those influences reach us... direct vs indirect.
 
Last edited:

jg1982

Well-known member
This website illustrates the idea way better than I can...

http://www.esotericastrologer.org/MiscFiles/EAintro.htm


Some exerpts :

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"There is a constellational zodiac which is visible to the eye, and a sign zodiac which is not visible, although we may trace the latter’s existence against the backdrop of the constellational zodiac.[/FONT]"


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The planets transmit the ray energies through the zodiac; the zodiacal sign is another electromagnetic pattern or “thoughtform”. The understanding of what consitutes a thoughtform, something that all humans can create, is essential in the comprehension of why zodiacal energies condition human beings, but is beyond the scope of this discussion.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our earth zodiac of “signs”, is an invisible reflection and focaliser of the energies from the visible constellational zodiac earlier mentioned. The zodiac can be considered as a ‘subtle’ body of the Earth, the ‘astral’ body, (astral meaning ‘starry substance’). Hence there are intangible, unseen energies that we are perceiving with our developing ‘intangible’ senses.

By the time these forces reach earth, there is a combination of three groups of energetic patterns from rays, planets and zodiac signs. They find their way through the major chakras of the planet (major cities, but also certain groupings) and are thence distributed to humanity.
[/FONT]
"

I find great resonance with this line of thinking....
 

Shanti

Well-known member
I have spent some 30 years in astrology seriously practicing, studying, researching. I've spent half of the time using tropical zodiaz exlusively, and half of the time using sidereal vedic system.

My firm conclusion is that both works as systems in their own rights.
But in slightly different ways:

Tropical works often somewise better in character analysis.

But sidereal does functions fine in topical analysis (mostly studying in the vedic astrology system).

For example the famous poet Baudelaire who was an tropical aries but had his sidereal planets more in an stellium in pisces (poetry). He was
a quite aggressive aries type of character in his behaviour. While his actual soul was a poet.

One example that is often clear is how the actual moon position that tells of how one instinctly reacts to stimula.
Persons with aries tropical moons are often instinctually impulsive and in some instances quickly instinctly going into attacking mode when triggered by some issue.

An aries moon in tropical system does often correlate to a sidereal pisces moon. So it is easy to check this out.

So sidereal positions work more in a soul oriented way (karmic) ?
Reflecting perhaps the stars as more distant and vast framework, while tropical positions more in tune with the changing seasons and the Earth sun relationship.
 
Last edited:

Alice McDermott

Well-known member
As far as I can see, the Tropical Zodiac is the Earth's energy field - probably its electro-magnetic field, though its energy grid is likely to be part of this. http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/earth’s-electric-field/

Here is a picture of its magnetic field

RTOLg11s.jpg



This is activated by the Earth rotating around the Sun each year, stimulating a part of that energy field (sign of the zodiac) each month, The Sun and the planets in our solar system 'shine through' the Earth's zodiac and are therefore sort of coloured by that energy when manifesting on Earth in any moment of time. The Huber system of astrology maps this more accurately than the normal chart form as they put the planets on the outside of the zodiac signs.

This zodiac starts its measurement from when the Sun (from the perspective of Earth) moves out of the Southern Hemisphere and onto the equator at 00N00 declination - this point is called 0 Aries. As the Sun moves from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern, that point on the equator 00S00 declination, is called 0 Libra. http://aliceportman.com/what-is-the-difference-between-northern-and-southern-hemisphere-astrology/

As Earth is part of the solar system it is naturally strongly influenced by the Sun as its center and the harmonic resonance of the other planets, because it is all one entity. An analogy could be a human being is one entity made up of many factors; I am sure that from the perspective of a little cell in our brain the cells in our liver are trillions of miles away, but that doesn't stop a person getting a terrible headache when the liver is upset.

Likewise, the Sun itself orbits around a central point in our galaxy and is part of many solar systems within this galaxy, so naturally has a resonance with every one of them. To trillions of tiny little life forms that are part of one little planet in one small solar system, the vastness of this might seem incomprehensible, but to the Central point itself it is just part of its system.

INo40Jns.jpg



As for sidereal astrology - I have never quite understood what it is about. It is not based on the constellations as they are not made up of even, thirty degree segments and anyway, the constellations seem to be an artificial construct made from the thoughts of western people in our far past. The Asian races also have constellations but these are vastly different to those of which we are familiar.

I do think the Sun has its own zodiac, activated by its orbit around the Center of the Galaxy, which willy-nilly affects everything within our solar system but as that orbit takes millions of years to complete, I am not sure that we have the ability to measure and understand it.

Alice
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

....As for sidereal astrology -
I have never quite understood what it is about.
It is not based on the constellations
as they are not made up of even, thirty degree segments and anyway,
the constellations seem to be an artificial construct made from the thoughts of western people in our far past.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=30766140a6c8e353c71ae1a63a66845e SIDEREAL FORUM
At an ancient time when most people thought the universe was a living being,
it was "The Norm" to imagine tiny points of light seen in the night sky
as being grouped into separate, distinct sets of 'Images'.
These 'Images' were made up of separate stars
which - in the opinion of the ancient people of this planet -
seemed to be grouped together.

Thousands of years ago, on various parts of planet Earth,
different cultures imaginatively 'connected the dots' of the tiny points of light
that they thought were close to each other
and personified them as 'Mythical Beings'
and narrated stories about the lives of these Mythical Beings.




The Asian races also have constellations
but these are vastly different to those of which we are familiar.....


The Mythical Beings and the stories of their lives varied from culture to culture

Different cultures imagined different images in the patterns of the stars of the night sky.

The ancient people of this planet did not know that these tiny points of light were hundreds
- perhaps even thousands -
of light years distant from each other
. :smile:

THREE QUOTES FROM
http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/astro/...ation.faq.html


'...oldest description of constellations as we know them
from a poem called Phaenomena
by Greek poet Aratus 270 B.C.
it is clear from the poem that the constellations mentioned originated long before Aratus' time.
Research reveals a plausible origin.
Firstly, Aratus' constellations excluded any near the south celestial pole
because that was always below the horizon of the ancient constellation-makers.

From the size of this uncharted area of the sky,
we can determine that the people responsible for the original constellations lived near a latitude of 36° north
which is south of Greece and north of Egypt
but similar to the latitude of the ancient Babylonians and Sumerians
....'




'....Because of "wobble" of Earth's axial rotation,
position of celestial poles changes slowly with time
- a phenomenon known as precession.

The constellation-free zone is not centered exactly on the south celestial pole,
instead the uncharted area is centered on the place in the sky where the south celestial pole would have been around the year 2000 B.C.


This date matches the time of the Babylonians and Sumerians.
So it seems likely that the Greek constellations originated with the Sumerians and Babylonians
....'




'.....From there, knowledge of the constellations made its way to Egypt
- perhaps Minoans on Crete had contact with Babylonians and settled in Egypt
after an explosive volcanic eruption destroyed their civilization,
from there early Greek scholars first heard about the constellations and wrote about them


T
he earliest known efforts to catalogue the stars date to cuneiform
texts
(
i.e. Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian texts and artefacts
)
and artefacts dating back roughly 6000 years.

These remnants, found in the valley of the Euphrates River
suggest that the ancients observing the heavens saw the lion, the bull, and the scorpion in the stars ......'

British Museum web page regarding the origins of writing in Mesopotamia http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/writing/story/sto_set.html
 
Last edited:

jg1982

Well-known member
Very interesting posts everyone, so much information to learn. I am a bit short on time, but I will be surely looking up a few things that were written here..
 
Last edited:
Top