ivandwight
Active member
can anyone explain about the differences between these two? which one is better? why some of the calculations made in traditional astrology are not made today? (almuten figuris, and stuff like tha)
modern astrology vs traditional
- Thread starter ivandwight
- Start date
Bunraku
Well-known member
Modern doesn’t seem to care for dignities/debilities that much, and most forgo it. They’re used extensively in trad, so get used to this table:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html
waybread
Well-known member
Thanks, Tamara.
Ivan, in terms of "which one is better," I'd suggest you study both and then determine which one is better for you. Keeping in mind that there is a lot of variance within these categories as well as between them. Also, any type of astrology contains "the good, the bad, and the ugly," so we want to focus on the good material.
Easily one third of the material is the same between modern and traditional. Traditional astrology operates more by assessing planets' strength, whereas modern astrology tends to consider planets as operating differently, but not necessarily as stronger or weaker in different signs and houses.
Although in some ways, modern astrology seems to be a streamlined, simplified version of traditional astrology, once you get into modern astrology at an intermediate level, you would probably want to pick up on midpoints, harmonics, asteroids, and some sensitive points like Black Moon Lilith and and vertex. Modern astrology places a heavier reliance on aspects, although traditional astrology uses them, as well.
One big difference is in how the two systems make use of the modern outer planets, notably Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. They are routinely used in modern astrology, not used at all by many traditional astrologers, and used as supplementary data points by others.
Thanks to some efforts by a new generation of modern astrologers ca. 1970, a lot of modern astrology was known as modern psychological astrology, because it incorporated insights from Freudian and Jungian psychology. Today, as those two psychologists have become eclipsed in the discipline of psychology, there is not much truly psychological about modern astrology; although it is more interested in people's personalities. However, traditional astrology includes analysis of personality in a different form, called temperament.
Traditional astrology was moribund in the West from about 1700 to 1900, and when it revitalized, it was through a new modern astrology which was often heavily spiritual. Renewed interest in traditional astrology picked up around 1990. Today, both groups have their fans-- and antagonisms, but some astrologers don't like to be pigeon-holed and see themselves as partaking of both traditions.
This is a stretch, but I think that traditional astrologers are more interested in horary astrology and predictive work; and modern astrologers are more interested in personality analysis from natal charts. But each group does both types of chart readings.
Vedic (jyotish) astrology is different yet again.
Ivan, in terms of "which one is better," I'd suggest you study both and then determine which one is better for you. Keeping in mind that there is a lot of variance within these categories as well as between them. Also, any type of astrology contains "the good, the bad, and the ugly," so we want to focus on the good material.
Easily one third of the material is the same between modern and traditional. Traditional astrology operates more by assessing planets' strength, whereas modern astrology tends to consider planets as operating differently, but not necessarily as stronger or weaker in different signs and houses.
Although in some ways, modern astrology seems to be a streamlined, simplified version of traditional astrology, once you get into modern astrology at an intermediate level, you would probably want to pick up on midpoints, harmonics, asteroids, and some sensitive points like Black Moon Lilith and and vertex. Modern astrology places a heavier reliance on aspects, although traditional astrology uses them, as well.
One big difference is in how the two systems make use of the modern outer planets, notably Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. They are routinely used in modern astrology, not used at all by many traditional astrologers, and used as supplementary data points by others.
Thanks to some efforts by a new generation of modern astrologers ca. 1970, a lot of modern astrology was known as modern psychological astrology, because it incorporated insights from Freudian and Jungian psychology. Today, as those two psychologists have become eclipsed in the discipline of psychology, there is not much truly psychological about modern astrology; although it is more interested in people's personalities. However, traditional astrology includes analysis of personality in a different form, called temperament.
Traditional astrology was moribund in the West from about 1700 to 1900, and when it revitalized, it was through a new modern astrology which was often heavily spiritual. Renewed interest in traditional astrology picked up around 1990. Today, both groups have their fans-- and antagonisms, but some astrologers don't like to be pigeon-holed and see themselves as partaking of both traditions.
This is a stretch, but I think that traditional astrologers are more interested in horary astrology and predictive work; and modern astrologers are more interested in personality analysis from natal charts. But each group does both types of chart readings.
Vedic (jyotish) astrology is different yet again.
CapAquaPis
Well-known member
The debate whether traditional works best or better than tropical or modern is the last 3 "planets" Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were discovered in recent times (Uranus 1783, Neptune 1846 and Pluto 1930). I prefer to use both tropical and check sidereal for any quirks in natal charts or horoscopes, but has the 3 outer planets in mind for usage in forecasts, so I'm modern instead of traditional.
david starling
Well-known member
Without the three outermost ASTROLOGICAL Planets, the three that most Modern-astrologers consider basic to a Chart, you lose the contextual, generational considerations. (The Astrological Ages are even more about context.) But, if you do include them , you lose the concise relationships of Sun, Moon, and the five easily visible Planets as delineated in the Table of Dignitaries. Traditional-astrology adheres to certain patterns which are quite complex in their entirety, and won't work if you include the outer three.
I can't say which is better but I felt a bit pressed to reply, since I have some perspective on both topics that I can offer. I've studied Modern Astrology almost daily for 4 years, and have been studying Traditional Astrology for 6 months. You're probably wondering why I study both. I'll give a personal example, using both methods of astrology, and the topic will be romance.
In Modern astrology, Saturn is considered a planet that signifies karma/past life ties. About 3 years ago, I encountered strange occurrences where I'd keep running into the same set of synastry (3 different males born on the exact same day & year). I thought it wasn't mere coincidence that I kept falling for guys that had the same exact birthday. These relationships all had a "Best friend/We could date/Awkward in between" vibe that was confusing. I looked up modern references and found that our synastrys had karmic markers, (Saturn-moon conjunction double whammy at 0 degrees, in the composite, tight saturn conjunctions to sun and moon, pluto stuff too,) and so I started to believe that these several indications meant that our interactions were karmic/fated.
Being in the moment, I felt pressed to find answers and so I devoted all of my study time (everyday) to relationships. When I received replies, and of the various things I'd read on the subject, I found very vague descriptions. It was popularized that these, er, abundance of men, were my "soulmates" and considering how terrible and difficult my experiences were with these guys, I wasn't sold on buzz-words like "past flame", "sustainability", and "soul-mate" that had no basis in the reality I was living. I told my fellow believers in karmic astrology that my experiences were actually very bad, and they insisted that it was these karmic aspects that made a relationship great. They discredited my life experience and the kicker, they were supposed to be telling me stuff about myself.
What I've just described is cook-book astrology, which I highly recommend that you stay away from. To modern astrologers credit, I've interacted with several, well-trained modern astrologers that approached each chart as unique and complicated, and they were able to tell me very accurate things about myself.
I kept reading about karma/past lives for years to no avail. I'll now describe how I've come to have a clearer understanding of these relationships through Traditional Astrology. Please keep in mind that I've only studied for roughly 6 months and cannot go fully into detail just yet.
I have Moon in Pisces, in a day chart, above the horizon, residing in the 7th house, ruling the 11th house. Right away we can tell that moon is out of sect, and she is therefore behaving strangely. The 11th house is the house of friendships, hopes and wishes, among other things. The 7th house represents your committed relationships, marriages, and business partners. Just from this, we know that my friends are going to try to have committed relationships with me, and that this behaviour is strange.
Looking at the Moon's aspects, I see that Moon is conjunct Saturn, and Saturn in my chart is placed in the 7th house, ruling the 5th and 6th houses. The 5th house is the house of romance. Moon is square Jupiter, and Jupiter is in the 4th house, ruling the 4th and 7th houses. 7th house is the house committed relationships. Putting it together, we see that my friends will have committed relationships, and romances with me, and that this is strange and irregular behaviour.
So now I finally know why my relationships with these guys had a best friend/we could date/awkward somewhere in between vibe. Of course there's more to it than what I've typed, but I'll hold on that for lengths sake.
I'll tell you that modern astrology, (not cook-book astrology) definitely has some merit, and so does traditional and I also agree with Waybread, go with what works for you. I recommend that you study both Modern and Traditional. I must caution you that if you choose to do so, that you be weary of inheriting any teacher's bias(es). Easier said than done, but in the learning phase, I recommend that you keep your mind open. Good luck, ivandwight, on your journey.
ivandwight
Active member
hey iced8.... look ive been reading both and also part of vedic astrology, sometimes it's kinda confusing but i just keep on with my study and on the way i am clarifying things. well, just talking about another thing but related more to traditional astrology because cazimi is somthing i guess was more used in traditional, now i dont hear about cazimi that much, well i know it is an exact conjunction that they call partil conjunction if im not wrong.
so talking about cazimi my question is...
what kind of career do you find well and suitable for cazimi mar in the sign of pisces being in the 10th house, MC? how do you interpret it if there you have a gemini ascendant with the ruler mercury in 9th house aquarius plus virgo moon conjunct the IC, in addition saturn placed in the 10th house too and at 25 degrees? do you think writing is a good choice for this case? what can you say about the physical contexture if we are talking about gemini rising and a cazimi mars?
so talking about cazimi my question is...
what kind of career do you find well and suitable for cazimi mar in the sign of pisces being in the 10th house, MC? how do you interpret it if there you have a gemini ascendant with the ruler mercury in 9th house aquarius plus virgo moon conjunct the IC, in addition saturn placed in the 10th house too and at 25 degrees? do you think writing is a good choice for this case? what can you say about the physical contexture if we are talking about gemini rising and a cazimi mars?
Modern is a simplified (and innovated) version of traditional and traditional is a simplified version of vedic. At the core, they are all the same. Vedic is the most complex version, modern the most willy-nilly version and traditional is somewhere in between (but relatively close to vedic).
ivandwight
Active member
thanks for the answer, and what can you say according to the other questions above?
Generally speaking you'll notice that modern is quite flexible and has mostly a rather positive outlook while traditional and vedic are a bit on the rigid and negative side.
IMO, for a quick overview, modern is excellent. It works really good for synastry. For more detailed and in-depth analysis, traditional and vedic are far superior. What you have to keep in mind is that you cannot calculate strength of the outer planets, but detailed analysis requires advanced calculations which are impossible if you don't know strength and temporary nature of a planet. Vedic is especially good for predictions. So depending on your purpose, you'll naturally gravitate toward a particular version of astrology.
The way I see it, the actual issue is not traditional vs. modern. They are different aspects of one and the same. The actual issue is tropical vs. sidereal, because that's a question about the very basics of astrology.
IMO, for a quick overview, modern is excellent. It works really good for synastry. For more detailed and in-depth analysis, traditional and vedic are far superior. What you have to keep in mind is that you cannot calculate strength of the outer planets, but detailed analysis requires advanced calculations which are impossible if you don't know strength and temporary nature of a planet. Vedic is especially good for predictions. So depending on your purpose, you'll naturally gravitate toward a particular version of astrology.
The way I see it, the actual issue is not traditional vs. modern. They are different aspects of one and the same. The actual issue is tropical vs. sidereal, because that's a question about the very basics of astrology.
david starling
Well-known member
Why do you say you cannot calculate the strength of the outer Astrological-planets? Neptune in Virgo, for example would be weak, Neptune in Pisces is strong. Any Planet in the Sign it rules or the Sign opposite. By "weak" and "strong" I'm referring to its ability to express its true nature.
Last edited:
'Strong' or 'weak' is too vague. If two strong planets form an aspect, how do you know which one is going to dominate? Planets can be sufficiently strong, very strong, exceptionally strong etc. An actual number that indicates the degree of strength would be helpful. In vedic they have a very sophisticated system for calculating the strength of a planet, it's called shadbala, sixfold strength. It's similar to the traditional system. Which means strength by sign is only one of several kinds of strength, six in total. So if you want to calculate the strength of Neptune, then you first have to answer a series of questions:
1) What is Neptune's exact degree of exaltation?
2) Is Neptune strong in even or uneven signs?
3) Is Neptune a male, female or neutral planet?
4) Is Neptune strong in the east, south, west or north?
5) Is Neptune strong at day or at night?
6) What is Neptune's fixed value of natural strength (luminosity)?
etc.
And if you want to do predictions with Neptune, you would also have to determine the length of Neptune's planetary period.
So, lots of questions we don't really have answers for.
ETA: And you would also have to determine Neptune's nature in relationship to all the other planets, e.g. is Neptune a natural malefic, benefic or neutral? What planets are Neptune's natural friends or enemies?
Last edited:
tsmall
Premium Member
The planet in the superior position counting from zodiacal houses dominates. And there is a difference between strength (ability to carry out significations as signified by things like dignity, sect, domain, etc.), and fortitude, as in the angular ability to make a blessing or bloody mess all over the chart.
This has been tried, and tried again. If you are looking for an actual number then you have no further to search than here
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html#liltab
Though, I warn you that this table is certifiably lacking in just about every way. There is no "cookie cutter" method to determine the strength and/or ability of a planet. But if you go beyond what is available online and actually study, the answers are there.
In the western tradition, they have this too. And interestingly enough as well as to counter a previous claim by you
Vedic astrology actually evolved from the ancient Greek, i.e. western astrology. The only difference is that while the Hindu astrologers were able to avoid the political wars and religious ideological infighting that plagued the west, make no mistake. Vedic astrology is Western Hellenistic astrology, as applied to the sidereal zodiac which aligned with the tropical around the time the system came into use.
Exactly.
waybread
Well-known member
Vedic astrology derived from Hellenistic astrology, with the exception of the lunar mansions, which are indigenous to India. See the research of Brown University professor David Pingree on this point.
Modern astrology simplified some parts of traditional western astrology, notably the essential and accidental dignities. But then modern astrologers may use harmonics (minor aspects,) modern heavenly bodies (outer planets, dwarf planets, asteroids,) and theories derived from Jungian psychology. It seems to place a heavier emphasis on aspects.
Modern natal astrology is not so concerned with planetary strength, angularity, or "good" or "bad" placements. It is more concerned with character analysis, and less with prediction.
It is possible to get a lot of detail out of modern astrology. It doesn't have to be highly simplified.
With any type of astrology, there is the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Modern astrology simplified some parts of traditional western astrology, notably the essential and accidental dignities. But then modern astrologers may use harmonics (minor aspects,) modern heavenly bodies (outer planets, dwarf planets, asteroids,) and theories derived from Jungian psychology. It seems to place a heavier emphasis on aspects.
Modern natal astrology is not so concerned with planetary strength, angularity, or "good" or "bad" placements. It is more concerned with character analysis, and less with prediction.
It is possible to get a lot of detail out of modern astrology. It doesn't have to be highly simplified.
With any type of astrology, there is the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Last edited:
tsmall
Premium Member
I've not done all the research I should, but I would disagree with Pingree on the lunar mansions, only because I know that the lunar mansions are used in hermetic astrological magic.
Bunraku
Well-known member
Actually, I’m curious about this. Can you elaborate?
_
Anyways, this site shows a few modernists attempting to assign Neptune rulership, since I thought you’d find it interesting. http://www.astrolearn.com/astrology-articles/neptune/
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
On my own, when first trying to understand Sign-rulership, I divided the Rulers into 2 categories: Those that move in only one direction through the Chart, and those that move both ways. The Moon and Sun (faster one first) therefore rule one Sign each, and Mercury through Saturn, 2 Signs each. The ancients were aware of the Heliocentric model (attributed to Aristarchus C.200 B.C.), and I imagined that they may have used it as a cipher to assign rulership, together with Modes and Elements. Most obvious, the (Heliocentrically) stationary, firey Sun ruling Fixed-fire. Using a definition of "Cardinal" as "locational", and the Earth's orbit as the origin-point, the Planets Venus and Mars are both equivalent (from Equinoctial) and opposite, being adjacent to, and inside and outside the origin-point; and the Moon and Saturn are closest to and farthest from it (Solsticial). The color of Mars suggests Fire, and the brightness of Venus due to its atmosphere, suggests Air. Tropical-astrology developed in the northern-hemisphere, where the Tropic of Cancer is nearest and that of Capricorn, farthest. So with the Rulers of Cancer and Leo in place for single-Sign Rulership, and the other 3 Cardinal-sign rulers assigned for double-Rulership, and using the words "Tropical" and "Solsticial" to mean "turning (back)" and "at a standstill (before turning-back)", it all falls into place: Moon
, Sun 
, Mercury 
, Venus 
, Mars 
, Jupiter 
, Saturn 
; then stopping and turning-back (Solsticial and Tropical): Saturn 
, Jupiter 
, Mars 
, Venus 
, and Mercury 
.david starling
Well-known member
The Outers Neptune and (sorry J.A.
) Pluto, are slow enough to describe both generations and eras. The WWII generation, for example, Neptune in Leo; and the "Roaring", flamboyant 1920's, as well. The emotional, "Soaring 60's" Neptune in Scorpio, etc. We've got several Neptunian generations in the Community. Anyone over 116 is Nep in , and up to Nep in . (A 4year-old member could have Nep in ) The younger Astrologers in particular are more comfortable using Pluto for generations and eras. Without the Outers, it's about individual's Charts, and assigning Astrological significance to successive generations and eras appears to be off the table.Thanks for the link--amazing how long this debate has been going on, still with no consensus. There has been good reasoning on the topic I hadn't seen before--thanks again!
Last edited:
Bunraku
Well-known member
Yep, that’s what we’re here for. It’s a learning forum, to learn and discuss! (And to post memes occasionally)
The Outers Neptune and (sorry J.A.
The Astro texts I have usually attempt to put historical timelines in accordance to the outer planets, but the problem I encountered with it is that they only focused on the U.S. and cherrypicked aspects of history to emphasize their point.
How would you interpret Neptune in Leo, the roaring 20s, when we’re talking about China or Madagascar? One cherry picked aspect of what is happening in the U.S. does not apply to the rest of the world where in other countries something completely unrelated is happening.
Also have you used the outer’s historical significations/context to delineate a natal chart before? Interdasting mix of mundane astrology, natal, and personality.
Last edited: