Discussion: Are houses same as signs...?

This is a thread to evoke opinions. Particularly, those based on some observations or even contemplations. It aims at something that exists in the minds of astrologers of all kinds: Tropical, sidereal, newbie or wizened. I was going to add "opinionated or unopinionated" but then upon reflection arrived at the opinion that the latter category does not exist within the large tent of astrology!

We or at least some of us talk of and even perhaps consider the so called Kaal-Purush chart which has aries (sidereal) in the first house and then Taurus in second ... pisces in twelfth. Outside of the kaal purusha chart considerations, some astrologers believe that a planet in aries anywhere in a chart has some attributes as if it is in 1st house and indirectly holds sway over the specific first house in a given chart, astronomical problems notwithstanding. However, this must be taken as a subtle nuance and not a crude reality, since planets, particularly those in outer orbitals stay in a sign for a long time while many individuals get born during that period.

A complementary belief proposes that the houses in a chart possess the essence of signs. So, the first house is attuned to aries, second to Taurus, etc. If mercury is in third or sixth house, then it would be in some ways similar to as if mercury is in own sector of the zodiac. Once again, if we take this too literally it would be inviting trouble or mistakes at the very least.

What has been your experience...?

Regards,

Rohiniranjan

Kai wrote a good series of essays on that here: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8463

The upshot is that traditionally, no, the planets, signs, and houses are not conflated that way.

As far as I know in western astrology, the 'astrological alphabet' was created by an astrologer called Zip Dobyns sometime in the mid-twentieth century, and a lot of modern astrolgers say that Aries, the first house, and Mars are analogous.

Oddity said:

Kai wrote a good series of essays on that here: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8463

The upshot is that traditionally, no, the planets, signs, and houses are not conflated that way.

As far as I know in western astrology, the 'astrological alphabet' was created by an astrologer called Zip Dobyns sometime in the mid-twentieth century, and a lot of modern astrolgers say that Aries, the first house, and Mars are analogous.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tropical outlook, Oddity. Nice thread!
Let us wait for a few more perspectives from different astrological camps!

Regards,

Rohiniranjan

Hi Oddity,

I have at best a nodding acquaintance with tropical astrology so cannot comment on the symbolisms there as they evolved over time presumably since the time when the sidereal and tropical zodiacs were last coincident. It has been many centuries and a large numbers of perspectives have changed and newer astronomical entities had to be accounted for (transsaturnines, asteroids, etc). It is notable too that tropical astrology, at least in the past few centuries, was being practiced in a milieu where scientific and technological progress and consequently societal norms were changing fiercely with astrology having to keep up with the mounting scepticism both from prevailing religious dictates as well as the 'moderners'. Astrology in the west, in other words, was under a lot more strain in order to walk in locked-step with societal norms than was the case in the east. The practice of astrology in India for instance hasn't changed quite all that much during that period. What we see as 'new' there is really old and already existing knowledge which is becoming more readily available and in that sense can be called as more 'revealed'! ;-)

I think this X=Y=Z is a flawed concept since '=' is not the right function/sign. The way I have seen it and thought about is that perhaps X, Y and Z are symbolically related and trying to convert those relationships and symbolism into an = is a rather tall order!

Some of the mention of these X~Y~Z symbolic relationships perhaps arise from nadis which are somewhat different from mainstream vedic system (Parashara-Jaimini and similar trains of thought). Unfortunately, much of the literature on the vedic side lacks citations and that reduces matters to remaining anecdotal and less convincing to the modern minds which are more geared to seeing a bibliography of citations such as in wikis and research papers as well.

Although we all would love to reduce the corpus astrologica into a neat set of equations and algorithms, but perhaps we are far from that point yet. We also see, in vedic (possibly tropical too) a variety of combinations which are associated with traits, outcomes and states but these are not too useful for prognostication unless very cautiously applied. Not surprising, since astrology is multifactorial and must not be presumed to fit into the mold that works for science of physical reality which is what has remained the primary frontier of science so far. Science is getting better at things such as predicting the weather and human behaviour (an interesting expression of which are the stock market swings) but I was told by a knowledgeable Indian astrologer that so could he using ancient astrological techniques and has made predictions about those publicly).

This thread is certainly not about whether this is better vs that since we are not privy to all the details and techniques etc given the limitations of this sequential medium. NOR is the intent to check whether Aries=First House=Aries anywhere in chart = first house or anysign in first house=aries! Heavens no, that would be too simplistic, really and astrology though simple is not that simple, is it?

In vedic texts (Parashari and Jaimini schools of thought) in addition to aspect-bridges between planets (jupiter's trinal, saturn's sextile and square (10th) in addition to opposition), aspects are prescribed or described between signs depending on their dynamic attributes. I am visualizing something similar for signs and houses for the theme of this thread.
Anyways, thanks for your contribution to this topic. Much appreciated.

Regards,

Rohiniranjan

In trad western, there are aspects by sign, and if you read people like al-Biruni and ibn Ezra (early medieval Persian) there was quite a lot of borrowing back and forth between Joytish and Persian astrologies.

I think the problem is that in the West, astrology simply wasn't practised (there were very very few astrologers around), pretty much from the time of the last university programmes (late 1600s) until Alan Leo reinvented it in the early 1900s.

Western astrology is far more fractured than Jyotish, and modern Western is in many ways more a 'reinvention' than a 'continuation' of what went before it, and indeed one that is doomed if it's attempting to pursue respectability in light of modern science.

Oddity said:

In trad western, there are aspects by sign, and if you read people like al-Biruni and ibn Ezra (early medieval Persian) there was quite a lot of borrowing back and forth between Joytish and Persian astrologies.

I think the problem is that in the West, astrology simply wasn't practised (there were very very few astrologers around), pretty much from the time of the last university programmes (late 1600s) until Alan Leo reinvented it in the early 1900s.

Western astrology is far more fractured than Jyotish, and modern Western is in many ways more a 'reinvention' than a 'continuation' of what went before it, and indeed one that is doomed if it's attempting to pursue respectability in light of modern science.

Click to expand...

Yes jyotish does use Sahams which are derived terms such as pars fortuna as well as mid-points and Tajik for annual horoscopy which are similar to Arabic astrology, so some sharing does exist in parts.

Modern science, lest we forget, has had the advantage of directly feeding into the needs (technical, technological, convenience, modernisation...) of society and attracted more practitioners to its growing fold as well as huge funds. Astrology, whether in the west or east, on the other hand, has remained the domain of silo-practitioners and that makes it appear somewhat disjointed and easier for mainstream to question and even ridicule. :-(

United we stand, divided we fall, is something that science and scientists latched on to for a long time (despite some infightings and jealousy); astrologers by personal choice have ignored that simple historically-accurate dictum! ;-( (painful wink!)