posted April 15, 2008 11:36 AM              

What I found myself often doing previously was emphasizing the venus and mercury signs because they were often in the sign preceding the sun sign. I have always noticed people had traits of their tropical mercury sign - that is bec more often than not it is the same as the siderial sun sign. Anyway, I feel like another piece of the puzzle has been resolved.

While I see alot of merit in the siderial sun signs, I do not see much in the other planets signs. I am inclined to think the planet's signs are irrelevant. What is relevant are the aspects and the houses. This is the case for the outer planets why should it not be the case for the inner planets? It always seemed like overload to analyze the sign, house and aspect for each placement. Dispensing with signs, except for the sun sign, and sticking to aspects and houses for everything else, clarifies and focuses the chart tremendously.

Try it.

posted April 15, 2008 11:49 AM              

I never felt like a bull in a field. A ram in a field surrounded by babe sheep is much more me! lol

Seriously though, it really fits me better. I will read up on it and post more later

posted April 15, 2008 06:47 PM            

So I am going to have to agree to disagree with you, Bucketrider.

However, I do believe that actual constellations have influence. I am not talking about the Sidereal Zodiac. That's not the same as the constellations because zidereal zodiac has 12 equal signs and the constellation zodiac has 13 uneven constellations on the ecliptic.

I am Virgo Sun in the constellation zodiac and not a Libra Sun which I am in sidereal zodiac. Yeah...I can relate to my tropical sunsign,Scorpio too.

posted April 16, 2008 12:01 AM              

I think the actual constellations are probably the most accurate for sun signs. Although the notion of 13 signs does not square with the aspects all based on the division of 12 (opposition, square, trine, etc). So there are probably 12 and ophiucus is part of scorpio.

I am inclined to disregard the notion of signs altogether, other than the sun sign. Possibly the moon. The planet signs are overrated and I think the aspects and house placements are far more accurate than the signs. A venus square neptune aspect tells me an enormous amount. What sign that square is in has become more and more irrelevant. It makes sense to me that the sun has a sign which to some degree influences the rest of the chart as the sun shines on all the planets. It IS a star and so relates to other stars. So too, the solar energy effects all the planets. Putting the planets in signs unnecessarily complicates things. There is a focus and elegance to magi, cosmo and to some degree uranian systems that is severely lacking in the overuse of tropical signs. I am interested in focusing on whats most important and disregarding the rest.

I think its very hard for most people to be objective about their sun sign when they are so psychologically connected to it as a defining identity. Especially as it has been an identity for so many years. I relate to this as it is the same for me. However, it is not us. We are more than the sum total of all the aspects, houses and signs. We are the product of our decisions too. More so than anything else.

That said, I encourage people to take an honest look at their sun sign via siderial or the actual astronomical constellation (Glaucus) and see if it is not a better fit. Forget the rest of the planets signs in the siderial system. I am only talking about the sun. Think it over for a couple of days.

posted April 16, 2008 02:12 AM              

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jungian archetypes
Main article: Jungian archetypes

The concept of psychological archetypes was advanced by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, c. 1919. In Jung's psychological framework archetypes are innate, universal prototypes for ideas and may be used to interpret observations. A group of memories and interpretations associated with an archetype is a complex, e.g. a mother complex associated with the mother archetype. Jung treated the archetypes as psychological organs, analogous to physical ones in that both are morphological constructs that arose through evolution. [3]

Jung outlined four main archetypes:
The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation
The Shadow, the opposite of the ego image, often containing qualities that the ego does not identify with but possesses nonetheless
The Anima, the feminine image in a man's psyche; or:
The Animus, the masculine image in a woman's psyche
The Persona

Although the number of archetypes is limitless, there are a few particularly notable, recurring archetypal images:
The Syzygy
The Child
The Hero
The Great Mother
The Wise old man
The Trickster or Fox
The Puer Aeternus (Latin for "eternal boy")
The Cosmic Man
The artist-scientist
The Scarlet Women
The Faceless Man

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------

Archetypes are like the painting on a stain glass window in a cathedral. the light shines thru the window and brings them to life.the paintings, figures are the archetypes each person carries in their unconscious mind, the light is the soul consciousness. Basically our experince of reality is dependent on the archetypes we carry, sometimes from life to life.its not wierd is it,. how the same event can happen to two people but how they experince it is different. THAT is the work of archetypes. say two individuals lose a lot of money. one of them is carrying the archetype of an optimist, he will move on.. the other carries the archetype of being a victim, well it could be a while before his life flows smoothly. THAT is why vedic astrology is so FATED. becoz it is very hard to change the archetypes u are carrying.

i have the nature of a double cancerian, true i m craby,, moody, over sensitive etc. but i do experience reality in DUAL..
i realise this is a little philosophical, but Carl Jung has written a lot about it, he was into indian philosophy and knew how powerful images and archetypes can be to the extent of controlling our experinecs of Physical Reality.

posted April 16, 2008 05:12 AM              

It is interesting how others practices such as Magi do not use houses (nor to some extent signs) and yet they are highly accurate in their analysis. They simply work off the aspect too.

posted April 16, 2008 07:26 AM              

quote:

---

In astro.com, is it the Lahiri Sidereal chart or the Fagan/Bradley one?

---

posted April 25, 2008 01:41 PM              

The tropical system is based on fiction, on an idea of the seasons in the northern hemisphere relating to the signs. There is nothing winter about sag and nothing summer about cancer. There is a whole half of the world which does not live in the northern hemisphere and for whom spring would presumably start in libra, not aries.

I also see strong evidence for a 13th sign acc to this system as many who should be scoprio (instead of sag) are actually ophiuchus (Nov 30 - Dec 17) which has a very strong chironic feel and relates to healing. This is the only month, or 20 days, of people that I know who do not fit their supposed siderial sign easily - scorpio. They do fit the ophiuchus archetype and are idealistic, charming, in touch with their own and other people's pain, into healing, tend to be gifted in some way and have an aura of specialness. They are often more quiet than sag should be and are more romantic.

posted April 25, 2008 03:16 PM              

quote:

---

In astro.com, is it the Lahiri Sidereal chart or the Fagan/Bradley one?

---

posted April 25, 2008 11:27 PM            

Geocentric means "Earth at the centre".
Heliocentric means "Sun at the centre".
Normally we use geocentric astrology meaning position of the planets/luminaries seen from the Earth i.e., Earth at the centre.

[[In astro.com, is it the Lahiri Sidereal chart or the Fagan/Bradley one?]]

What is the difference?

posted April 26, 2008 12:02 AM            

When I finally learned about my chart, I identified with it almost 100%. My sidereal sun sign is Taurus. I HARDLY act like a Taurus in anyway. Furthermore, the names of the sun signs really don't make a difference. Hell, you could call me a sidereal Taurus all you want just as long as the description fits that of a traditional tropical Gemini. So if a tropical Gemini is equal to a sidereal Taurus, then, I guess you can say I'm a sidereal Taurus.

But if you say that the description of a Sidereal Taurus is the same and equal to the description of a tropical Taurus, then I cannot agree.

posted January 09, 2011 11:29 PM            

Western sidereal would be Fagan Bradley and subtracts 24 degrees while
Vedic Sidereal would be Lahiri and subtracts 23 degrees off the sign to compensate for the movement of the stars.

I've been looking at Western Sidereal a lot lately.
The way it's explained makes sense to me.

I can relate to my Western sidereal chart.
Though, I can also relate to my Tropical chart.

In Western Sidereal my sun is in Libra 29'
In Tropical my sun is in Scorpio 23'
and Scorpio is still the strongest sign in my chart, either way, especially with both Mercury and Mars conjunct and still in Scorpio.

My point is,I'm not entirely sure yet,but I'm starting to lean towards the Western Sidereal,but not Vedic.