Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
muchacho said:
I don't have an issue with that. I was just sharing an observation. It wasn't meant to belittle traditional western astrology.

There are some differences between northern, southern and eastern Indian astrology as well. The most obvious is the difference in chart style.

Generally speaking, different cultures tend to project their different belief systems onto astrology and so there are a lot of different flavors. You seem to prefer the Christian flavor. I'm more interested to get to the core without the different flavors. So I think it's important to distinguish between what's a genuine astrological concept and what's just cultural preference or projection. And the light theory seems to be a Christian projection as Oddity explained.
Click to expand...

I didn't take it as such, I merely pointed out that you need to analyse the situation within a certain context. Western astrology was practiced through out a vast range of cultures, while vedic only within a few related ones.

The light theory is older than Christianity, because it was the hellenic astrologers who placed more importance into light base techniques. What Oddity simply stated was a poetic bible verse.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
Michael said:
Vedic astrology is the only truly traditional astrology.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you are aware, but the outer planets are excluded from vedic astrology. Most vedic astrologers reject their use. In fact, they pretty much agree with us western traditionals on the subject at a near universal level. The very book muchacho called the "bible" of vedic astrology doesn't include the outers mate.

Problem is that you seem to be taking the lead of others who practice a very personal form of astrology that may inter-mixes a range of techniques from every branch that exists. They simply call it "vedic" because it aligns better.

I'm not sure if muchacho uses the outers, maybe he does not, so I do not include him on my statement above. I think he may only be against the "light" argument.

So I think you are betting on the wrong horse mate.
 
Last edited:
M

Michael

Well-known member
I am aware traditional vedic astrology doesn't include the outers, but some modern western practitioners are using them.

However, I see a bigger problem than using or not using the outers, it's the wrong positions of the constellations on the tropical zodiac. I wonder how this affects prediction.

Ancient Hellenistic astrology was more powerful for prediction because back then both the Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs were aligned.

Right now Vedic would win by a large margin.
 
Last edited:
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
Michael said:
I am aware traditional vedic astrology doesn't include the outers, but some modern western practitioners are using them.

However, I see a bigger problem than using or not using the outers, it's the wrong position of the constellations on the tropical zodiac. I wonder how this affect prediction.

My view is that ancient Hellenistic astrology was more powerful for prediction because back then both the Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs were aligned.

Right now Vedic would win by a large margin.
Click to expand...

Well, not to be unfair to your statement, but you would usually need to back-up that claim with some data showing a higher succes in predicting with one technique over the other.

Otherwise, its just childish talk.
 
Oddity

Oddity

Well-known member
Sidereal astrology doesn't reflect the 'true' planetary positions either. You'd need to go to constellational astrology for that, but I don't think anyone's come up with an agreed-upon constellational zodiac.

You see astrology as a modern science, and constellation-based is about as materialistic as it gets, so you might want to check it out for yourself.

Michael said:
Thanks. I think you have good reasons for not using the outers. However, there is a bigger problem. You call yourself a traditional astrologer, while you use a tropical zodiac that doesn't reflect the positions of the actual constellations in the sky.

It doesn't make sense. All ancient astrology was sidereal. The Babylonians, Egyptians and Chaldeans used a sidereal zodiac. Even the ancient Indians in Vedic times did sidereal, with their Moon mansions and primitive astrology.

The Zodiac you are using is not western, it's of Babylonian origin and it's proper use is Sidereal, so the only astrologers that deserve the title of traditional are the Vedic.

Vedic astrology is the only truly traditional astrology.
Click to expand...
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
muchacho said:
Are you actually saying that it is literally the visible light of the stars/planets
that influences us astrologically?
Because following this visible light logic, then
a street light next to my house at birth
would have a much stronger influence than any planet in my chart
because of its enormous brightness in comparison.
Click to expand...
Not if Sun was above horizon at birth :smile:
and
even if curtains were open and Sun was below horizon at birth
obviously indoor lighting far outshines "light from a street light next to house at birth"
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
muchacho said:
Which has already been debunked by both of you
when you both acknowledged that at least Uranus (one of the outers)
is actually visible to the naked eye.
So this discussion should have ended right there.
Not sure why you keep trying to resurrect this dead horse.
Click to expand...
Uranus was discovered in 1781
by British astronomer Sir William Herschel
who incidentally
made the first ever planetary discovery with a telescope.
i.e.
Sir William Herschel discovered Uranus only because he was using a telescope :smile:
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
muchacho said:
Which has already been debunked by both of you when you both acknowledged that
at least Uranus (one of the outers) is actually visible to the naked eye.
So this discussion should have ended right there. Not sure why you keep trying to resurrect this dead horse.
Click to expand...

Fact is, Uranus is barely visible
by a KEEN naked eye
on very dark, clear nights
and so
for that reason :smile:
space.com advises all and sundry

"....When hunting Uranus
it is best to carefully study a star map
of that part of the sky where the planet is located
and then
scan that region with binoculars.
Using a small telescope with at least a 3-inch aperture
and magnification of 150-power
you should be able to resolve it into a tiny, pale-green featureless disk....."
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
Oddity said:
Sidereal astrology doesn't reflect the 'true' planetary positions either. You'd need to go to constellational astrology for that, but I don't think anyone's come up with an agreed-upon constellational zodiac.
Click to expand...

Not even a constellational zodiac would work, because it depends on the constellational model you use. The ancient Chinese saw very diferent figures in the skies than the ancient Greek, Babylonians or Egyptians.

The zodiac is not an accurate representation of the cosmos, it's a model. A model needs to be properly used to serve any useful function. The tropical use of the Babylonian zodiac is a travesty.

For some reason, Ptolemy, one of the few ancient astronomers who was aware of this, didn't see a problem. He thought the Earth didn't move, while the stars did move. So he wanted to anchor the Zodiac to a fixed frame of reference, in this case the vernal equinox.

Science has advanced since Ptolemy's time. We now know the Earth moves, while the stars are mostly fixed. Sidereal astrology makes more sense.


Oddity said:
You see astrology as a modern science, and constellation-based is about as materialistic as it gets, so you might want to check it out for yourself.
Click to expand...

I see astrology as a science in the classical sense. Modern science is incompatible with astrology. This doesn't mean we have to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist.

Ostrich astrology is not only unscientific, it's anachronistic.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Michael said:
Funny you mention the concept of light while using a tropical zodiac, where the constellations are more imaginary than real. You are doing armchair astrology.
Click to expand...

The MEANINGS of the Constellations are imaginary though. The images themselves originally corresponded to seasonal (Tropical) activities with the heliacal viewing that was used around 2300 B.C. And, the Sign BOUNDARIES that divide the Constellations into 12 equal parts are imaginary, yet extremely important. The stars themselves have been given meanings, and they Progress through the Tropical Sign-intervals; so, Tropically, the stars can act upon us like Planets, instead of adding qualities to the actions of the Planets, which they do Sidereally, grouped into Constellations.
Since both types of Zodiacs work for so many Astrologers, they have equal, overall validity. It's just that Astrologers differ in what works for them, personally. Otherwise, we'd all agree on everything. And what fun would THAT be?! :biggrin:
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
You make good points. But you need to take into account the Babylonian zodiac was intented to be used sidereally. While the idea of fixing the zodiac to the vernal equinox was done with a primitive understanding of Axial precession.

Science has advanced since then, while studies of ancient Babylonian astrology, including some surviving horoscopes have proven it used a sidereal zodiac, not tropical.


david starling said:
And, the Sign BOUNDARIES that divide the Constellations into 12 equal parts are imaginary, yet extremely important.
Click to expand...

Here we have to disagree. The 12 house models are meaningless in almost every sense, except they were useful for ancient Hellenistic astrologers to make aspects easy to do without complex mathematics.

We have better house models now, corresponding with real human activity.


david starling said:
Since both types of Zodiacs work for so many Astrologers, they have equal, overall validity.
Click to expand...

Few western astrologers are doing predictive, traditional astrology. We don't have enough data to prove this.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Michael said:
You make good points. But you need to take into account the Babylonian zodiac was intented to be used sidereally. While the idea of fixing the zodiac to the vernal equinox was done with a primitive understanding of Axial precession.

Science has advanced since then, while studies of ancient Babylonian astrology, including some surviving horoscopes have proven it used a sidereal zodiac, not tropical.




Here we have to disagree. The 12 house models are meaningless in almost every sense, except they were useful for ancient Hellenistic astrologers to make aspects easy to do without complex mathematics.

We have better house models now, corresponding with real human activity. Also, Hipparchus discovered the relative movement of stars versus seasonally-measured points around 150 B.C. So, Tropical Astrology was a new, DELIBERATELY designed version, not an accidental result owing to ignorance about celestial mechanics. Personally, I feel more attuned to Ancient Greek Astrology than Babylonian. I don't see the Babylonian as more correct or less correct than the Greek, just different.


Few western astrologers are doing predictive, traditional astrology. We don't have enough data to prove this.
Click to expand...

The "Zodiac" is about the Constellation images. I don't conflate Signs and Houses, so I'm talking about the boundaries that divide the 12 unequal-length Constellations into 12 equal-length Signs, not the 12-house systems.
Also, Hipparchus discovered the relativistic movement of stars versus seasonally-measured points around 150 B.C. So, Tropical Astrology was a new, DELIBERATELY designed version, rather than an accidental result owing to ignorance of celestial mechanics.
Personally, I feel more attuned to Alexandrian Greek Astrology than Ancient Babylonian, and that one isn't "more correct" than the other.
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
david starling said:
The "Zodiac" is about the Constellation images. I don't conflate Signs and Houses, so I'm talking about the boundaries that divide the 12 unequal-length Constellations into 12 equal-length Signs, not the 12-house systems.
Click to expand...

In that case we agree. The zodiac is an elegant construction. Some modern ideas to assign accurate dimensions to the signs make it cumbersome (algorithmics) and difficult to understand (calculate). Like the Bergian 13th house system, with irregular (but accurate) signs.

The 12 signs, 30° per sign, zodiac wheel is a model of the cosmos, designed by the Babylonians to be used siderally.


david starling said:
Also, Hipparchus discovered the relativistic movement of stars versus seasonally-measured points around 150 B.C. So, Tropical Astrology was a new, DELIBERATELY designed version, rather than an accidental result owing to ignorance of celestial mechanics.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was deliberately done, but they also thought the Earth was immobile. They didn't know about Einstein's theory of relativity either.

We now know better. A sidereal zodiac makes more sense for modern astrology.


david starling said:
Personally, I feel more attuned to Alexandrian Greek Astrology than Ancient Babylonian, and that one isn't "more correct" than the other.
Click to expand...

People generally feel more attuned to what they know. The problem is they might be wrong. As they often are.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Michael said:
Not even a constellational zodiac would work, because it depends on the constellational model you use. The ancient Chinese saw very diferent figures in the skies than the ancient Greek, Babylonians or Egyptians.

The zodiac is not an accurate representation of the cosmos, it's a model. A model needs to be properly used to serve any useful function. The tropical use of the Babylonian zodiac is a travesty.

For some reason, Ptolemy, one of the few ancient astronomers who was aware of this, didn't see a problem. He thought the Earth didn't move, while the stars did move. So he wanted to anchor the Zodiac to a fixed frame of reference, in this case the vernal equinox.

Science has advanced since Ptolemy's time. We now know the Earth moves, while the stars are mostly fixed. Sidereal astrology makes more sense.

I see astrology as a science in the classical sense. Modern science is incompatible with astrology. This doesn't mean we have to ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist.

Ostrich astrology is not only unscientific, it's anachronistic.
Click to expand...
david starling said:
The MEANINGS of the Constellations are imaginary though. The images themselves originally corresponded to seasonal (Tropical) activities with the heliacal viewing that was used around 2300 B.C. And, the Sign BOUNDARIES that divide the Constellations into 12 equal parts are imaginary, yet extremely important. The stars themselves have been given meanings, and they Progress through the Tropical Sign-intervals; so, Tropically, the stars can act upon us like Planets, instead of adding qualities to the actions of the Planets, which they do Sidereally, grouped into Constellations.
Since both types of Zodiacs work for so many Astrologers, they have equal, overall validity. It's just that Astrologers differ in what works for them, personally. Otherwise, we'd all agree on everything. And what fun would THAT be?! :biggrin:
Click to expand...

QUOTE

'…..man did not see pictures in the night skies
and then circumscribe the constellations
according to artistic vision.
Instead
man noted that people born when certain groupings of stars were rising
or setting
or directly overhead
exhibited certain characteristics in common :smile:


These characteristics seemed animalistic,
bird like,
aquatic
heroic
or ultra humanistic.

Once this correlation was made,
the symbolic mind of man
assigned SHAPE to groupings of stars
for easy reference.

Some shapes were earthly, human

some creative fantasies

but each shape or constellation
represented symbolically
THE OBSERVED EFFECTS OF THAT GROUP OF STARS
when manifested in the life of a person...' Robert Huntz Granite
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Relativity VALIDATES geocentric Astrology, including Siderealism. Galileo was first to recognize the concept, in order to support the Copernican model of an orbiting AND rotating Earth. It basically says, it's up to the observer to choose a coordinate-system, and that measurements within a particular system are as correct as those within another.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
QUOTE

'…..man did not see pictures in the night skies
and then circumscribe the constellations
according to artistic vision.
Instead
man noted that people born when certain groupings of stars were rising
or setting
or directly overhead
exhibited certain characteristics in common :smile:



THE OBSERVED EFFECTS OF THAT GROUP OF STARS
when manifested in the life of a person...' Robert Huntz Granite
Click to expand...

The observed effects on human behavior were originally (c.2300 B.C.) due to 12 month SEASONAL activities and conditions. That's why they still apply to the Tropical Signs. This was a heliacal correspondence at the time.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
The observed effects on human behavior were originally (c.2300 B.C.) due to 12 month SEASONAL activities and conditions. That's why they still apply to the Tropical Signs. This was a heliacal correspondence at the time.
Click to expand...

NO correspondence re: Southern Hemisphere TROPICAL SIGNS today :smile:
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
david starling said:
Relativity VALIDATES geocentric Astrology, including Siderealism. Galileo was first to recognize the concept, in order to support the Copernican model of an orbiting AND rotating Earth. It basically says, it's up to the observer to choose a coordinate-system, and that measurements within a particular system are as correct as those within another.
Click to expand...

Astrology is geocentric. Relavity validates the geocentric model of the cosmos to some degree, but not tropical astrology. Modern astrology should respect it's sidereal roots.
 
Top