other Astrology traditions?

[blue_fusion]

actually two things: a) i was just wondering if there are people here who are into other astro traditions because b) i've just encountered the wiki stuff on it and the images are wonderful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyoti%E1%B9%A3a - for the indian tradition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chol_Qij_glyphs.jpg - for mayan.

again, just wondering. as there apparently are lots of interesting alternatives to western-style astrology.

[dadsnook2000]

You may be able to find "new" or "other" astrological traditions right here within "Western" astrology.

** Mid-points and equal-arcs provide an interesting approach without using signs, houses and major aspects. The combinations of three-or-more planets in combination offers very specific interpretations and it also lends itself, using Solar Arcs, to pretty tight predictive work.

** Sidereal approaches are quite a drastic change. Unlike common misconceptions, the sidereal approach is not really about using another zodiac. The siderealists seldom use signs. It's all about timing and prediction and does require some improved math over what the tropical zodiac often requires. Natal charts are natal charts but when you go to Solar Returns and other stuff, it gets downright amazing at the accuraccy.

** Uranian astrology uses different house systems for different views of the natal chart, plus it uses eight hypothetical planets in addition to the ones we are so familiar with.


On the other hand, there are many methodologies that can be used that provide very different views of natal, progressed, solar return charts. Sabian symbols, arabic parts, planets in containment, declinations, locational astrology are the more common methods explored. These are just a few ideas that you might want to explore. Dave

[Fire Cat]

What I don't understand; and so far no one has offered any explanation that makes sense to me; is, when one says the moon is in Taurus on a particular date, like Dec. 19th, why is it that I look in the sky on Dec. 19th and not see it in Taurus but in Aries?

[dadsnook2000]

You can't see a "sign" in the sky. Only in a chart. You can see "constellations" in the sky --- sky patterns of stars that are commonly accepted representations of pictures such as "gods" or animals, etc. Because the Tropical Zodiac (of signs) is related to the first day of spring, and because that day/point changes by about 1 degree per 72 years, the Tropical zodiac is about 25 degrees away from the visible star constellations. Since a "sign" is a mathematical segment of 30 degrees that is related to the Aries point (spring), its invisible, it can't be seen in the sky. Dave

[Fire Cat]

Is there a system based on the constellations instead of the signs?

[dadsnook2000]

The Sidereal Zodiac is related to the constellations -- but note that signs are 30 degree segments, the constellations vary considerably in size and some even overlap each other relative to their north-south position to the celestial equator. Dave

[Minderwiz]

Western Astrology started out based on the constellations. There is evidence of myths and legends which appear to date from the periods when Taurus and Gemini marked the Spring Equinox.

The use of 30 degree signs, as opposed to the unequal constellations probably developed to make calculations and predictions more sophisticated and consistent. For Astrologers who used a circle as a two dimensional representation of the sky and with twelve accepted astrologically relevant constellations, the use of twelve equal parts of a circle became common. Two thousand years ago the Spring Equinox was in Aries and the tropical zodiac based on the equinox and the sidereal zodiac based on the stellar background to the Spring equinox coincided.

As the Spring Equinox moved back into Pisces, most European Astrologers kept to the classical zodiac and the first degree of Aries became redefined as the Spring Equinox. In India Astrologers kept to the Sidereal Zodiac using the first degree of the constellation of Aries as their 'zero' point. Both of these traditions still maintained the use of equal sized signs. So for Europe (and later the US) and India, Astrology ceased to mirror exactly the stellar background.

This account is a gross simplification and I'm sure Dave will wish to add to it but in effect the increasing use of geometry to measure and divide the heavens saw the effective end of constellation based Astrologyin Europe and India.

[dadsnook2000]

Stars? What stars! Who uses stars? In the centuries preceding the adoption of the Tropical Zodiac around 214 AD by the Greeks, measurements of stars and planets (by position and rising factors) had already largely ceased. Tables of positions and lunations and eclipses had come into common use among the few who practiced astrology. Most astrologers had stopped watching the sky and making their own measurements.

Yes, from time to time, someone would recheck and make corrections, but for the most part astrologers of the western world were using tables for planet movement, for times of sunset, for the rising of planets, etc.

Today, I have had students who could not point out the visible planets in the sky, who could not relate the sky to the chart. That's how little many people pay attention to the natural world around them. So, 30 degree segments of the celestial equator is easy to adopt when you are using tables -- or computers.

Tables of longitude position also do away with the messy problem of declination -- the visual displacement of a planet away from the zodiac center line. Declination is the reason why, when you have a planet of the Ascendant, that a visual look at the sky will often show the planet already several degrees high in the eastern sky -- or perhaps it won't rise for another half hour or so. Three dimensional placement is not popular among astrologers who are not capable of truly understanding the spherical geometry factors of measuring the sky.

All of this confuses some early-studies astrologers. I understand this well and I solve the problem by not using signs at all. Once you do understand the mechanics of the sky, you'll know that the Sun's seasonal declination defines the signs "for the Sun." The Moon has its own nodal axis, yet few use the Moon's Draconic Zodiac. Nor does anyone use each planet's own personal zodiac as defined by its orbital nodal axis.

A lot to think about -- or to ignore. Perhaps its best to just use 30 degree signs as defined by the computer or ephemeris. Dave

[ravenest]

Originally Posted by blue_fusion

actually two things: a) i was just wondering if there are people here who are into other astro traditions because b) i've just encountered the wiki stuff on it and the images are wonderful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyoti%E1%B9%A3a - for the indian tradition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chol_Qij_glyphs.jpg - for mayan.

again, just wondering. as there apparently are lots of interesting alternatives to western-style astrology.

Aside from what some insist, the basic meaning and understanding of Astrology (and all definitions you might look up {don't take my word for it-look some up yourself on the net, library, encyclopediea, dictionary, etc,} ) by the vast majority and different cultures throughout time has been all about stars.

Yes there is a LOT of astrology about that isnt just modern western astrology. A lot of them do use stars. Two examples. the Golden dawn astrological system starts with the star Regulus setting 0 deg. Leo. Australian Aboriginal astrolgy uses stars, with some systems within this using the spaces between the stars (dark patches, dust clouds, etc)
to make the shapes, figures and mythology.

The Egyptian astrology used stars, also ones off the band of the ecliptic.

No one has a monopoly on astrology.

I use a system of varient stars and multiple constellations, based on the actuall movement of objects against the background but dont utalise this publicly as it makes some astrogers agitated and unreasonible - go figure!

[Minderwiz]

I think it's important to make a distinction between 'stars' and the 'constellations' (or more properly for Astrology the zodiac). As a means of charting the position of planets in the heavens (as seen from Earth) the constellations of the zodiac are now for better or worse irrelevant and indeed as Dave points out, have been for at least two millenia.

However the use of individual stars as significant factors in Astrological interpretation lasted well into the seventeenth century, William Lilly used about 50 stars in his interpretations (not all at the same time!). The use of stars is making something of a come back in the works of Bernadette Brady and by authors discussing horary issues.

Unfortunately, rather like the use of declinations that Dave refers to, the success of two dimensional Astrological charts tends to shift attention from these factors, even though they are still reported in the data generated by Astrological software.

Whilst it is easy to bemoan the loss of sky watching as a means of reading the heavens it's also easy to forget that the weather does not always permit this. One of the spurs to developing tables in the past and computer programs today is to 'see' on paper what cannot always be seen out of the window. Like Dave, I think that all students of Astrology should be able to have some grasp of the three dimensional universe but If you wish to 'see' the moment of the full moon or the first light of a new moon, or Jupiter aligned with Mars, looking in the sky may often prove disappointing in the Northern latitudes.