Astrology without using the Zodiac signs

tobby

Well-known member
I remember reading somewhere on this forum that there are astrologers who completely disregard Zodiac signs when studying a chart and only take into consideration the planetary aspects. I’d be interested to read more regarding this theory and was wondering if anybody knows any sources for research on the subject. :smile:
 

Drsendero

Well-known member
You might be referring to "cosmobiology." Cosmobiologists don't use the zodiac and base their interpretations on aspects and midpoints. There are apparently a few types of cosmobiologists, some don't use houses either but some do, usually Koch. They can also make use of "dials" which really serve to help one find midpoints and aspects to midpoints.

As for resources, Rheinhold Ebertin's "Combinations of Stellar Influences" is a book that focuses almost entirely on the meanings of planetary combinations. He's considered one of the founders of cosmobiology. Even if one isn't a cosmobiologist, the book is a decent manual for interpreting aspects and midpoints. Curiously, he includes a description of the meanings of the signs.

There are other resources on cosmobiology, but I'm not familiar with them. I'd be interested in learning more about cosmobiology so I'm hoping someone else has more information to share.

Drsendero
 

Zarathu

Account Closed
While COSI is an essential book in every astrologer's library, I was never under the impression that Ebertin threw away the signs.

Most of us who are of this lineage realize that the signs are important in that they color the sky, and serve as the scenery backdrop to everything that exists. They are like the cosmic background, or even the Dark Energy and Dark matter that pervades the universe with itself, even though it may not have a focussed impact on what we do or see.
 

waybread

Well-known member
I definitely use signs, but think that aspects are far more important. Part of my thinking is that the sidereal (Vedic/jyotish) and tropical (western) zodiacs are considerably different today, due to precession of the equinoxes. Depending upon the author, the difference is estimated to be in the range of 24 or 27 degrees. This means that unless you have a planet or angle in a very late degree of a sign, it will be in the previous sign if you switch from a tropical to a sidereal zodiac.

Yet both systems can produce accurate results!

Apparently the reason why the Babylonians, in Days of Yore, switched from constellations to signs, was better to predict the locations of eclipses. They began their astrology by using constellations. However, some constellations occupy a lot of degrees along the ecliptic (Virgo =47) and others, only a few (Cancer=15.) By dividing the heavens into 30-degree sectors that roughly coincided with the constellations, eclipse degrees were easier to predict.

Two books I recommend are Robert Hand, Planets in Transit, and Planets in Youth. While he by no means ignores signs and houses, his major focus is on aspects; so you can see the huge amount of interpretive value that aspects have.

With aspects, the tighter the orb, the more the individual is likely to feel it. If you allow for declination (planets not always spot-on the ecliptic) you can see the above-horizon aspects in the sky, as well-- unlike the 30-degree pie sectors we call signs.

You probably know that the full moon is exactly opposite the sun, something that you can see on a clear night if you have good visibility at the eastern and western horizons just at sunset or a little after.
 

mdinaz

Well-known member
I definitely give more weight to aspects than I do signs, but the sign rulers and house rulers (determined by the signs) are also very important. By not knowing which ruler to look at, you wouldn't know which aspect is more important. As for Cosmobiology, I have the book and it is not an easy read. It is another whole system like Western vs Vedic, rather than another technique like Placidus vs whole sign.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Ebertin's Cosmobiologie uses the zodiacal signs-the various HOUSE DIVISION systems, is what he rejected.
The "neo-astrology" system of Gauquelin, rejects the zodiac.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
There are other resources on cosmobiology, but I'm not familiar with them. I'd be interested in learning more about cosmobiology so I'm hoping someone else has more information to share.

Drsendero


Some leading books (beyond Ebertin's COSI) on Cosmobiolgie (available in English) include:

+by Ebertin:
-Applied Cosmobiology
-Rapid and Reliable Analysis
-Transits
-Directions

+by later authors:
-Fundamentals of Cosmbiology: E & M Kimmel
-Cosmobiology for the 21st Century: E. Kimmel
-Midpoints: D. McBroom
-Dial Detective: M.K. Simms

(Dials for making calculations-in addition to all of the books listed above-are available from astroamerica.com)
 
Last edited:

tobby

Well-known member
Ebertin's Cosmobiologie uses the zodiacal signs-the various HOUSE DIVISION systems, is what he rejected.
The "neo-astrology" system of Gauquelin, rejects the zodiac.
Thanks dr. farr, looks like that's what I'm looking for.
 
Last edited:
Hey Tobby,
There's no doubt that the astrology science is possible without using zodiac signs.Main thing is planetary conditions because of their situations the effects of zodiac sign changes.Sp it's primary to know about planetary situations.

Regards
Shivanand
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Hey Tobby,
There's no doubt that the astrology science is possible without using zodiac signs.Main thing is planetary conditions because of their situations the effects of zodiac sign changes.Sp it's primary to know about planetary situations
Planetary significations take precedence :smile:
then since signs influence planets
the influence of the particular sign on the particular planet is usually assessed


for example
planets are 'more at home' in some signs
these are their 'domiciles'
so Sun's home territory is Leo
Moon's home territory is Cancer

and

planets are 'homeless' or 'peregrine' meaning having no essential dignity in others
so for example Sun is 'homeless' in Aquarius
Moon is 'homeless' in Scorpio


any table of planetary dignities and debilities shows this clearly
for example


dignities2.gif
 

tobby

Well-known member
Hey Tobby,
There's no doubt that the astrology science is possible without using zodiac signs.Main thing is planetary conditions because of their situations the effects of zodiac sign changes.Sp it's primary to know about planetary situations.

Regards
Shivanand
I agree 100%.
From what I've seen in my personal study of astrology, the traditional theories regarding zodiac signs, planetary dignities and debilities etc have no actual practical application.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Seems, then, that Gauquelin (and his, and his son's, extensive number of works-culminating in the "Neo-Astrology" book) is for you!
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I agree 100%.
From what I've seen in my personal study of astrology, the traditional theories regarding zodiac signs, planetary dignities and debilities etc have no actual practical application
.
So no note is necessary of the location of planets as described by their position in relation to background stars then..... :smile:

which effectively eliminates the use of Fixed Stars

and

since planets traditionally may be accidentally dignified or debilitated by house location
then perhaps you have also dispensed with the use of houses
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
In the Gauqelin system, houses (as these are understood in Western and in Vedic astrology) and signs are excluded, as are constellations, fixed stars, the outer planets, and the Sun and Mercury: the system concentrates on positional and aspectual relationships of the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
 

tobby

Well-known member
So no note is necessary of the location of planets as described by their position in relation to background stars then..... :smile:

which effectively eliminates the use of Fixed Stars
Where did I mention the discarding of the 360 degrees? Of course the location of the planets is not dicarded. Each of the twelve 30° divisions is still taken into account as much as before since the theory of out of sign aspects seems to have merit from what I've seen in my personal research.

since planets traditionally may be accidentally dignified or debilitated by house location
then perhaps you have also dispensed with the use of houses
Or perhaps not.
House dignities and debilities are also discarded though since according to my personal study and research do not have actual practical application either, but I can't see what made you think that I would have dispensed with the use of houses... definitely not.

You should note the word personal here though, I do not claim to be some kind of connoisseur οf astrology, I'm just entitled to believe in things that I have verified through my personal research, this is how I became a practitioner of astrology as well, through testing whether what I was reading in certain books about astrology was verified in reality.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Where did I mention the discarding of the 360 degrees? Of course the location of the planets is not discarded. Each of the twelve 30° divisions is still taken into account as much as before since the theory of out of sign aspects seems to have merit from what I've seen in my personal research.
So the 360º degrees 'are not discarded'
and the 360º are dissociated from zodiac signs
yet
quote:
'the theory of out of sign aspects seems to have merit'

Or perhaps not.
House dignities and debilities are also discarded though since according to my personal study and research do not have actual practical application either, but I can't see what made you think that I would have dispensed with the use of houses... definitely not
.
and so
houses are not discarded
and
interestingly, the Gauqelin system excludes houses
You should note the word personal here though, I do not claim to be some kind of connoisseur οf astrology, I'm just entitled to believe in things that I have verified through my personal research, this is how I became a practitioner of astrology as well, through testing whether what I was reading in certain books about astrology was verified in reality.
No one is claiming connoisseurship of astrology
astrology is in fact completely unregulated
so anyone can practice astrology
whether having conducted research
or not conducted research
on this forum, astrology is a matter of opinion
and we are all entitled to our personal opinions
In the Gauqelin system,
houses (as these are understood in Western and in Vedic astrology) and signs are excluded,
as are constellations,
fixed stars,
the outer planets,
and the Sun
and Mercury:
The Gauqelin system
highlights the angles

i.e. ASC/DESC/MC/IC
....the system concentrates on positional and aspectual relationships of the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
For anyone interested,
Gaucquelin Sector Chart is discussed at
http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3414 :smile:
 

tobby

Well-known member
and the 360º are dissociated from zodiac signs[/FONT][/B][/COLOR]
yet
quote:
'the theory of out of sign aspects seems to have merit'

You obviously do not want to understand a few simple things and you reply purely for the sake of replying, arguing over a word that I used in my previous post rather than over the substance of the whole thing. I clarified that the twelve 30° divisions are not discarded, I should probably say that the out of division aspects are not discarded – that way you wouldn’t have anything to fuss about right? So your complaint isn’t that I do not use the signs, but that in my previous post I used the phrase “out of sign” instead of “out of division”. So be it...

Also, why you didn’t show me where did I mention the discarding of the 360 degrees? I hope you won't skip it again on your next post.

and so
houses are not discarded
and
interestingly, the Gauqelin system excludes houses

Please show me where did I say that I use the Gauqelin system. I do not use the Gauqelin system and you should have already understood that since a few posts above I thanked the poster who informed me that Gauqelin was the researcher who used a system in which the signs are not taken into account. How could you reproach me for not using correctly a system that I didn’t even know it existed until a few days ago?

No one is claiming connoisseurship of astrology
astrology is in fact completely unregulated
so anyone can practice astrology
whether having conducted research
or not conducted research
on this forum, astrology is a matter of opinion
and we are all entitled to our personal opinions

It's all very well in theory, but what about in practice?

The Gauqelin system
highlights the angles

i.e. ASC/DESC/MC/IC

For anyone interested,
Gaucquelin Sector Chart is discussed at
http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3414 :smile:

Thanks for the link.

P.S. Your writing style is difficult to cope with when quoting your posts because of all those codes on them.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
For anyone interested,
Gaucquelin Sector Chart is discussed at
http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3414

Thanks for the link.
That's OK :smile:

by the way, for those interested, some info on Michel Gauquelin

QUOTE

'…...Michel Gauquelin graduated in statistics and psychology from Sorbonne
together with wife Francoise, he conducted most significant statistical research in astrology to date.
While his work does not substantiate some canons of traditional astrology,
it conclusively vindicates astrology’s fundamental premise:
that there is a relationship between the planets’ positions at birth
and the direction of individual lives.

Gauquelin’s work covers 23 years (1949 –1973)
involving research into questions of professional studies,
heredity studies and character trait studies.

Studies receiving most notoriety
involved correlations between position of a planet in natal chart
and a person’s chosen profession.
Most famous of these studies is known as “the Mars effect.”...'


'…..Gauquelin’s findings comprised 576 birth charts revealing a correlation of Mars and Saturn with physicians
at a chance level of millions to one.

Study involving 508 births revealed same results for other professions
correlating them with their traditionally related planets:
Mars with athletes,
Saturn with scientists,
the Moon with writers,
Jupiter with actors and politicians.
Those findings applied to eminent professionals
and were not present in charts of average professionals.

Research published 1955 in L‘influence des Astres,
Michel argued he was demonstrating
not evidence of astrology,
but some other celestial influence.
Was ignored by academic colleagues
until Michel sought professional peer review.....'
http://astrologynewsservice.com/articles/the-gauquelin-controversy/


'….During 1960s, the Gauquelins conducted another massive study that examined astrological relationships between parents and their children.
The 30,000 size sample of ordinary French citizens and their children revealed that when parents had certain planets in Sectors 1 and 4 of the charts,
their children were also likely to have the same planets in the same sectors.
The correlations between particular planets
– such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn –
were stronger in that order.
The significance level was 1 million to 1.
Induced or Caesarean births did not show this pattern.....'
 

RodJM

Well-known member
Interesting thread.

I haven't studied the work of Gauquelin yet, but I have heard of his name mentioned numerous times over my years of part time study in western astrology, that's probably because I've been curious about evolutionary astrology and spiritual development.

Before getting involved with his work, I have a quick question that I hope one of the members who has studied his work can answer for me.
Does he take into account individuals born in the southern hemisphere?
This can have an effect on the "strength" of Sun sign amongst other things.

Thanks in advance. :)
 
Top