Tropical vs. Sidereal

I recently had a report done that included both of these methods. There wasn't too much of a difference; I think the only difference was that my Moon was in Aries under the Tropical method, and my Moon was in Pisces under the Sidereal method. Before this report, I didn't even know there was more than one method! What is the difference?

Well approximately 24 degrees, depending on how the sidereal zodiac is measured. Strictly speaking if you use the sidereal zodiac you ought to quote the Ayanasma, which effectively governs the offset from the tropical zodiac because there are many different ways of measuring where the sidereal zodiac actually starts, so this information ought to have been given with the reading.

So for example, anyone with planets and points in the last few degrees of a sign will still have the same planets in the same sign under a sidereal reading, but now in the early part of the sign.

In terms of interpretation we move into a wholly different ball game. Dave knows much more about Western siderealists than I do so I'll leave any detailed comments there to him. Apart from the Western siderealists (a very small minority of Western Astrologers) Virtually all Vedic (Indian) Astrologers use the sidereal zodiac but again using a multiplicity of Ayanasmas.

The sidereal zodiac is an attempt to measure planetary position by relating them to the actual constellations. However it's actually quite difficult to do this, there's no agreement (hence the many Ayanasmas) as to where, for example Aries, starts. Moreover the difference between the sidereal zodiac and the tropical zodiac widens by approximately 1 degree every 72 years because of a phenomenon know as precession of the equinoxes.

Approximately 1800 years or so the two zodiacs coincided. Up to then all Astrologers wherever they were used the sidereal zodiac, and before then the Greeks clearly put the March equinox somewhere in the first 10 degrees of Aries. However the Greek Astronomer, Ptolemy, suggested the use of a tropical zodiac. As far as I can determine this idea didn't get very far and the large majority of Hellenistic Astrologers continued to use the sideral zodiac, like their Vedic cousins. The fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent dark ages cut off much of the knowledge of Astrology from the West, though somehow Ptolemy's work which had been translated into Latin, survived and with it the suggestion of the Tropical zodiac, which became the Western standard. Incidently Ptolemy not only changed Astrological practice but also Astronomical practice, and you will find that even after the separation of Astrology and Astronomy, Astronomers continued to use the tropical zodiac.

Oh, oh, sorry about that.

Was it a cosmic joke, or just an accident of history? Everything in ancient astrology was "sidereal." Sidereal, the word, means "of the stars." Astrology was initially observational in its practice. In the middle eastern countries the stars could be best observed in the evening at the setting of the Sun, when the new/next day was believed to actually begin, or at the morning light just before the Sun rose. At those times it was easy to see which stars were setting and rising, and hence be able to judge the day/period of the year that was associated with planting, harvesting, rains, holidays, etc. Astrology was at first a means of establishing a civil calendar.

Fixed stars became associated with various human attributes depending upon the nature of the rulers who were born under them or the events that seemed to be associated with the dates upon which they rose or set relative to the Sun. Planets could be tracked observationally by their place among the many constellations that a particular culture used --- constellations being patterns of stars which could represent a person or animal or iconic figure associated with a legend or myth or archetype.

By 700 or 800 BC observational astrology gave way to the use of tables that were developed from a mathematical understanding of planet motions. This made astrology more usable. Astrology seems to have been used to assess the fortunes of kings and their generals. Yearly charts were constructed for each of these important persons based on their birth-Sun position, a form of early Solar Return charts. Kings, generals, ambassadors were all selected for assignments that fit with their annual chart.

Alexander the Great waged war and conquered much of his known world from the Mediterranean Sea to India, both causing havoc and fragmentation of knowledge and cultures as well as homogenizing portions of knowledge and cultures. From this civil mess, the Greeks gathered bits of information from everyone and, astrologically, pieced together what they found. This all took place just as the Golden Age of philosophical inquiry and mathematical curiosity was being launched. All of the great minds of the period speculated and talked of these ideas. A fellow named Ptolemy wrote many of these ideas down. Others also followed his lead.

When the Roman empire collapsed, many of the cultures north and west of Rome and Greece fell into what we call the "dark ages" in which strong central governments, centers of education and collective farming/trading practices fell apart under warring tribes and invasions of armies from central Asia. Only portions of the Arab and Persian world continued to flourish, and the discovery and practice of scientific knowledge moved forward.

With the coming and passing of the Crusade period, Europe was opened up to long lost knowledge and stronger governments and academic centers again emerged. Along with this opening up came the gradual and un-ordered discovery of long lost documents and writings. Unfortunately for logical continuity, Ptolemy's writing were discovered earlier than other documents and were taken up as "gospel" truth --- as wrong and as misguided as they were in terms of relating the practices of cultures earlier than his time.

As it turned out, the Greeks had twisted up some of their found knowledge and misapplied it, in terms of astrology. As Minderwiz pointed out, the Sidereal Zodiac (as we call it today) and the newly discovered Tropical Zodiac (as the Greeks named it and developed its use) were coincidentally in the same position during the years surrounding 221 AD. Although other cultures knew that the Precession of the Zodiac occurred, and could measure it, and knew it better coincided with the seasons and civil calendar, it was not the basis of their astrology.

But, Ptolemy's writings prevailed and use of the Tropical Zodiac began to supplant the Sidereal Zodiac as the centuries passed and we moved through the Renaissance periods into the 1600's, etc.

The above seem to be more-or-less the facts of the situation. What I now write becomes more intermixed with opinion.

As the Tropical Zodiac became more separated from the Sidereal Zodiac, the practice of astrology became more "tweaked" or adjusted to suit the needs of the astrologer in matching his words/predictions with reality. Take this along with the still-fragmented understanding of astrology, and you can appreciate that all kinds of views, wild ideas and half-baked astrological practice began to flourish. Along with poor astronomical tables and the uncertainty of "time" based on the few clocks found in the larger towns and cities (central square clocks) and the poor observation of Local Mean Time at one's location (sun dials are not that accurate in most cases), charts were both inaccurate and poorly assessed.

By the 1700s, books conveyed great fame and authority upon their authors, as well as helping to spread their views and fragmented knowledge. The mess that was called "astrology" was propagated. It wasn't until some genuine practitioners and thinkers started to share their knowledge that the practice of astrology (wrongly or rightly based on any set of ideas) began to coalesce and could be objectively assessed and moved forward.

By the 1800's many cultural forces impinged upon astrology, the "mystery schools" and secret societies being some of those "forces" of influence. Newspapers and weekly journals picked up on astrology. Books became more available. A practice which involved a codified set of meanings for planets, houses and signs, plus better ephemeris tables and mathematical practices for chart construction, as well as the emergence of clocks and personal time pieces, all contributed to a more-or-less centralized practice of astrology. This astrology was based on using Ptolemy's Tropical Zodiac.

In the mid-1900s, Irish astrologer and historian Cyril Fagan and his associates re-discovered the Sidereal Zodiac of ancient cultures. Along with this discovery they applied modern math and came up with today's version of Sidereal practices which is known for its accuracy of prediction compared to the (opinion of many) poor application of Tropical Zodiac based prediction.

However, the groundswell of Sidereal applications which took place in the 1970's and 1980's was not enough to breakthrough into the Tropical world of astrology, especially with its dramatic growth in the last half of the 1900's. The demise of Fagan and other early adopters of Sidereal practices has left that school of thought with very few promoters. It is my estimate that less than 1/2 of one percent of today's US and European astrologers practice and are knowledgeable of Sidereal Astrology.

The Siderealist's have never, in my opinion, clearly made a case for the interpretive meaning of their signs versus Tropical signs. Given their small numbers, I feel that it is incumbent on them to do so rather than to take the arrogant view of "let the others continue on their misguided ways." I have attempted, in my limited way, to determine the model or basis for Sidereal Sign meanings, how the differences of the two zodiacs can be accounted for in the way we apply sign-meanings. I can't even find consistent sign descriptions that define a core idea and basis for extending meanings that can be layered upon planets, planet aspect patterns, and houses. There are some published sign meaning descriptions that offer pages and pages of applied meanings, but none that "teach" the core ideas and how to build upon them to help in an astrological assessment.

Accordingly, I use precession-corrected Tropical frameworks which give me the accuracy of Sidereal charting for predictive purposes while allowing me to communicate with Tropical astrologers. I don't use anyone's signs as I have found them to be trivial at best. I use planets, houses, angularity, and timing cycles for my astrological practice.

If anyone is truly interested in pursuing Sidereal practices they can either contact me directly by e-mail, dadsnook@charter.net, or visit my blog site at ninthhouse.wordpress.com to view examples of my predictive practices.

I will of course be happy to answer questions here. Dave

Modern Sidereal practices

To continue the previous posting . . .

Modern Sidereal practice appears to focus somewhat on natal charts and mainly the use of Solar Returns and their derived charts. Remember from my previous post that I mentioned ancient cultures casting annual charts for Kings, generals and ambassadors. Annual charts were often the chart of choice for ancient astrologers, it seems.

We have to keep in mind that various forms of progressing charts was the vogue of astrologers of ancient cultures, of the Greeks and Romans, of those few who practices in Medieval times, in the Renaissance period, in more modern times (1600-1900) and in the past century and today. Why? Because a chart cast at birth could have the progressed planetary positions more easily determined without losing much in positional accuracy. They were the most reliable tool for many astrologers who labored under extreme hardship in terms of accurate time, accurate planet positions, useful math, etc. The use of "revolutions" or annual charts, as practiced in pre-Greek times, was lost until documents were found and could be translated into European languages in the 1600's or so.

Once revolutions (Solar Returns) became known and astrologers such as Morin wrote about them, they became increasingly used. However, being cast in the Tropical Zodiac, they seemed to lose their effectiveness as one became older. Volguine (spelling?) who copied and restated much of Morin's works centuries earlier, wrote a very large book on Solar Returns in the mid 1900s. In the appendix section, he noted that Solar Returns became much less useful when people reached their teenaged years and useless when they were full adults.

Why would an author invalidate his lengthy writings and research with a notation like this at the end of his book? Because he was intellectually honest! He had captured the complete knowledge and practice of casting and using Solar Returns but was concerned about their loss of accuracy as one became older. He didn't know why, but he left that observation for others to pick up on and to explore.

Cyril Fagan was a Tropical Zodiac astrologer for much of his life until his historical work helped him to resurrect Sidereal Astrology. His focus was on validating its use in ancient cultures and exposing the malpractice of the Greeks and their promulgation of the Tropical Zodiac, and on developing the precise mathematics of applying the use of Sidereal practices to charts.

Note that I said "Sidereal practices" and not "Sidereal Zodiac." It was the difference of removing the effects of the Tropical Zodiac recession relative to the fixed stars that was more important than Fagan's focus on the placement of the Sidereal Zodiac upon the stars and constellations of the sky. After all, a zodiac is first and foremost just a positioning and measurement tool! We can overlay and position any number of segments and degree-buckets against the sky and use any names --- what is important is that we all use a common and consistent practice.

Since the Tropical Zodiac slides backwards each year, the Sun (technically) never completely moves through every degree-minute-second of Pisces because next year's Aries Point is set back into Pisces about 1/72nd of a degree -- that last little piece of Pisces is always getting thrown out and left unused. To reach its Sidereal birth time/place, the Sun has to travel just a little bit further to be realigned with the Sun and Star background. Over the course of some 36 years this amounts to half a degree and some 12 hours of time, causing a solar return chart (Sidereal) to have completely different signs on the MC and Asc.

Further, one notes that the MC of one solar return to the next solar return seems to shift house-wise about three signs and to shift the Sun about three houses from its prior-year solar return. All of this is based on a cycle that starts at birth and continues throughout one's whole life. This MC-Solar Cycle is what is behind the charts that I use for prediction.

The Siderealists knew of this phenomena but never articulated it and extend it into their practice in a way that linked their natal-solar-and-daily charts together into a logical and workable construct. Instead they chose to use the ancient forms of progression.

Using the Solar Return, one of their primary practices is to progress the angle of the MC such that the MC moves some 1.25 degrees per day (this accounts for the MC-position change between subsequent solar return charts) and to progress the chart's planets such that their single day's movement is stretched out over the entire year. This yields a fast moving MC that moves through a sign in some 24 days and slow moving planets that hardly change position except for the Moon which will move a degree or so each month. Basing a prediction on a changing MC and a small amount of Moon movement is easy to do ---- although its interpretive meaning seems to me to be questionable as to its usefulness and accuracy.

Another Sidereal practice is to progress the MC at the Sun's daily rate of advance. This moves the MC some 360 degrees throughout the year, BUT THEN CAUSES THE MC TO JUMP SOME 90 DEGREES to reach its next year's solar return position. This seems logically indefensible to me.

Still another Sidereal practice is to develop a series of Lunar Returns based on the Solar Return's Moon position rather than one's Moon natal position. Then, there are the Novian charts which are 1/9th or ninth-harmonic charts of the solar return (similar to some Joytish charts), and there are the old standby Lunar Returns. All in all, Sidereal practitioners appear to have many, many charts that they use. It is all very bewildering, all defendant upon exacting mathematics (thanks for computers as this was all very discouraging to the promotion of their practices in the 1970's up to 2000). Further, one would think that the nuances of planet meanings, houses and aspects might change for each type of chart --- but, no, they apply one practice to everything much like frosting on a cake.

One might get the impression that I am angry or down on Sidereal practices. I am actually frustrated that they can't progress forward from where Cyril Fagan left them in 1970. This school of astrology seems incapable of trying to advance the practice, to articulate their practices, and to compare their results against Tropical Zodiac astrological results.

So, I have taken my advances and changes to their practices and have started to make a case for more effective astrological practice. That is why I am writing a book redefining sidereal-based practices. That school of practice is not overly happy with my efforts, but the attempt to improve the practice of astrology by all astrologers without letting the Tropical-Sidereal debate interfere with improvement seems worthwhile.

Again, any are welcome to visit my blog site and see how this stuff works. In the meanwhile, I would encourage all list members to keep on their present path of learning about planets, aspects, houses, signs, chart usage, etc. but keep in mind that when you reach a level of competence with your astrological practice that you remain open to the fuller spectrum of what astrology can offer you. Its a lifetime of learning, changing, dropping what doesn't work, taking up what does work, marveling at the continuous flow of mysteries that are revealed, taking joy in helping others. Dave

Well, whilst i agree with much of Dave's statements, I also think there's a fair element of 'golden age' thinking - that there was a 'perfect rational and well thought out system of Astrology before the Greeks, which then suffered a fall when Ptolemy played the role of the serpant and dangled the apple of the tropical zodiac in front of Ibn Ezra, Al Biruni, Abu Mashar and co.

In reality, just because the sidereal zodiac came before the tropical doesn't make it the best zodiac. The horse and cart came before the motor car but there's not much demand to get rid of cars and return to the 'right' form of wheeled transport. Middle Eastern civilisations (not just the Greeks) were particularly keen to identify the Vernal Equinox - something essential as a marker of the coming of Spring and a reference point for the calendars necessary for agrarian civilisations to flourish. There is an argument that the Tropical zodiac best fitted the needs of the developing civilisations of the first millenium CE. Anyway the sidereal zodiac only held sway on it's own for around 500 years or so - the Tropical has dominated for over a thousand. Again, of itself, that is no justification.

Many of the authors such as Dorotheus of Sidon, who wrote in Greek, were translated into Arabic, rather than Latin because of the great Sultan Harun Al Rashid, who saved much of Greek learning, though it never made it to the West until thefourteenth Century. So yes, much of Greek and pre-Greek Astrology made it's way back into the West, piecemeal and through the interchange with the Arab world (and much of science and learning with it).

Much of this Astrology was indeed presented uncritically, especially Ptolemy (who probably wasn't an Astrologer at all). However there were quite a few late medieval and early modern Astrologers who did take a critical stance and who did develop (rightly or wrongly) a systematic approach, espeically in the field of medicine and also in the political sphere. The high point was probably the seventeenth century and ironically came as the foundations of Astrology were under attack. William Lilly in England presented a systematic approach (though he was prone to take much of the classical view on board) and especially Morin de Villefranche in France who tried to reconstruct Astrology in a scientific and rational way.

There then came a second 'dark age' in terms of Astrology as an academic subject, until it was revived in the mid to late nineteenth century, mainly but not exclusively as a result of the work of Theosophists, such as Leo and Sepharial. Leo's work twisted Astrology far more than the mistaken pre-eminance given to Ptolemy (though he at least had the excuse that he was trying to avoid prosecution for fortune telling) and it was further twisted again in the last century by the followers of Jung. None of these really challenged the predominance of the Tropical Zodiac, possibly because they didn't really understand the issues, or because of inertia.

The move out of an agrarian culture in the West, perhaps makes the Tropical Zodiac less important - though the problem of establishing an objective sidereal zodiac still remains. What is more, precession is not just a phemomenon of the last two thousand years, it's been there since the world began. So a zodiac based on somewhere in the constellation of Aries, is just as arbitrary (if not more so) than the Tropical Zodiac, which at least can claim to have some direct relevance to human life.

Nor did the use of the Tropical Zodiac move Astrology away from the stars (the use of tables occured before the adoption of the tropical zodiac anyway) Stars were used as part of Astrological analysis and prediction right up to the Seventeenth Century and Lilly's work is full of their use in interpretation. It's the Astrologers of the last 100 years or so who have forgotten their 'Stars'

The resources at Skyscript are useful for further reading:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/zodiachistory_print.html

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-a=sp1001ec22&

and for a series of articles and forum comments

sp-q=sidereal+v+tropical&search.x=96&search.y=9&search=go&sp-f=iso-8859-1

Lastly Nick Campions History of Western Astrology Vol 2

I've tried to show that the Tropical Zodiac isn't a 'screwed up' piece of Astrology but that is not to say that it is 'right' either. When it comes down to it, it's a matter of choosing which one works best for you as an Astrologer. And as Dave says, it's the consistent method of application which is important. Vedic Astrologers get just as good results using a sidereal zodiac as Western Astrologers get using the Tropical (some would say better LOL)

Edited to add:

Since I posted, I've also begun reading the following thread

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-...rch.x=96&search.y=9&search=go&sp-f=iso-8859-1

Dave might find this interesting as there's a discussion on Fagan/Bradley part the way through.

We have what we have.

We have what we have. We can see that the essence of astrology is both mysterious and reflective of people's lives. We find joy in its use, and others find help from those of us who practice it.

As Jeff Mayo, former head of the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London told me in the early 1970s, I was a student of his, "We all have a duty to practice with care and to seek answers through testing, development and being open to the ideas of others."

We can't practice with care unless we learn as much as we can about astrology and then apply it following a personal rigorous methodology. We can't test our practice and its results without being very honest with ourselves. We can't develop our practice without deeply thinking about what we are doing and how we are doing it to achieve a purpose. And we can't get better within a vacuum of thought, we have to interact with others and participate as fully as our time and priorities allow us.

Most of all, we have to know that there are more paths to our goals then we might believe, and that sometimes the goal is not as important as the learning and experiences we encounter as we move towards a goal.

Dave

Well, thank you both! I didn't get nearly as good of an explanation from the person that gave me the report. Actually, I just noticed it on there and went back and asked them and they told me it was "just two different methods; some astrologers live by the tropical, some the sidereal..."

So, now I have to ask. Should I keep with the idea that my Moon is in Aries because that is what I've always believed (apparently going by the tropical standards) or could I actually have characteristics of both Aries and Pisces since you (Dave) mentioned that the degrees of the signs are not easily pinpoint-able... or could I actually have shown more characteristics of Aries earlier in my life, and will show more characteristics of Pisces later on with these shifts?

Sidereal Moon in Pisces versus Tropical Moon in Aries.

I have pasted notes from Jim Eshelman's "Solunars" site concerning the Moon in Sidereal Pisces. You can compare his notes to what you believe Moon in Tropical Aries represents and see which fits better. As I noted, I don't bother with signs. Dave.

1. They are never more truly themselves than when they are being someone else.
2. Religious/mystical/ceremonial. Fascination with the unknown and recondite. Explorers.
3. Enter adventure aggressively, terribly impatient (?).
4. Powerful urges.
5. Mental faculties sensitive, senses finely honed.
6. Reliance on blind faith. Gambling. Unshakable confidence and optimism but tend to over-estimate odds in their favor.
7. Some overcome phenomenal negative chart conditions to reach self-actualization by pursuit of personal idealism. (Refuses to accept the problem's existence, thereby relegating it to oblivion.) (Don't dwell on problems in these cases, because they are strongly involved with other things.)
8. Defensive. (?) Chauvinistic, resistant to suggestions and ideas of others.
9. Aura of power and self-determination is one they feel they must constantly project. Often they play "big shot" games.
10. Aesthetic, sensitive, artistic. Musical, painters, playwrights, poets. (STATS: High for Gauquelin MILITARY MUSICIANS.)
11. Wanderlust, love of travel.
12. Passion to teach others. "Missionaries!"
13. A rather mystical, subjective approach to life and living. Interest in the occult. Ability to dramatize and lend color. Love to make a production out of everything. (Bradley) [Something unusual or out-of-ordinary about their dress. - JAE]
14. IDEALISTS - VISIONARIES - ROMANTICISTS. (Bradley)
15. Dramatizes own ego (in the imagination?). Relishes thrill of having "another side" to themselves (actors in own melodrama).
16. Easy capacity for celibacy or confined, prosaic sex.
17. "Craving and concealment go hand in hand." (Fagan)
18. Capable of emotional blocking.
19. Judgmental.
20. See & consider: Sun in Pisces Notes 6, 9?, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 (+trouble having fun) [NB - Numbers are from original notebook, not the list on this page.]


OTHER STATISTICS:
Gauquelin: Very low for "dreamer." Very high for "tenacious." Also significantly low for "powerful, charming, sensitive."

U.S. PRESIDENTS: John Adams

Dave- everything you've said has not been in vain. I'm letting all the facts sink in, and misplaced the part about you saying you don't mess with planets. Sorry about that. I think the Aries/Pisces Moon is something I'll have to research further and deeper- as some of the things you've borrowed to list here could make sense; some not. Probably why you don't mess with them too much I suppose... But I did browse your blog and I found something even more interesting than my Tropical/Sidereal dilemma

Thank you (both!) for all of the information. It'll give me something to chew on for a while, and thank you Dave for the link to your blog; I'm sticking it in my favorites so I can come back to it.

I must admit that I've no easy answer to your question.

Dave has given one possible answer from the Western siderealists but as he has pointed out they have problems with signs and sign meanings. Given the modern Sun sign bias this is a major issue.

It seems initially contradictory that signs could have the same meanings in both sidereal and tropical zodiacs, but clearly the original sign meanings and qualities were established when the two zodiacs had sidereal Aries as a start point. These meanings had a large (Northern Hemisphere) seasonal component. Indeed Deb Houlding thinks that one of the factors leading to the adoption of the Tropical Zodiac was the need to preserve the Seasonal nature of the signs, otherwise you rewrite everything about Aries and attribute it to Pisces.

My feeling would be that if you want a sidereal interpretation you go to a Vedic Astrologer, who is not hidebound by Western, especially modern Western conceptions of signs. However be warned, you won't get a Western style character reading.