posted April 16, 2010 09:57 PM         

I'm about to provide a great deal of info in this thread as I focus on a very complex and important issue that's not being discussed much amongst astrologers. If you are interested I urge you to read this so astrologers can helps avoid some disinformation out there that seems to "disprove" astrology.(more importantly, the form of astrology pretty much everyone on this forum takes into account when reading someone's chart) I have provided links below for additional research if this topic interests you, and after hours of researching I feel like the links I have provided are some of the better articles out there exploring the different zodiacs with the information they provide. If you are interested in researching more about this subject yourself they are worth checking out. Anyone who is interested in western astrology needs to educate themselves about the different zodiacs as many are attempting to disprove astrology. Your friends, Facebook, people on Youtube...pretty much everywhere are gathering slowly but surely.

Science is quickly spreading the word and many people who believe in astrology suddenly think it was all just in their mind and give up on it especially when their friend or stranger on the internet bursts their bubble and inaccurately tells them something like "You're not the sign you thought you were! Ha! See, astrology is for fools and the gullible." I'm witnessing this happen A LOT and it's saddening.(just go look under some astrology videos on youtube for example)

As many of you know(or might not know) the constellations in the sky differ from the signs assigned to them in the Western Tropical zodiac due to a phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes where the constellations due to the earth's "wobble" drift backward one degree about every 72 years .(by about 24 degrees total now compared to the western/tropical zodiac -- almost one full sign backward) According to the sidereal zodiac about 80% who are born Aries would therefore by Pisces ect. That's not just your sun sign either, but every object in your chart is rotated 24 degrees backward as well. So you think you are a Gemini Moon? According to a Sidereal/Vedic astrologer...there's a slim chance of that being true. Here you can watch in this one minute video(it won't take much time at all -- it's literally about one minute long) Bill Nye the Science Guy even joins in making fun of the dilemma and explains all of this in a very simple manner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQPFoDkGFrU

Wow, that sketch just totally screamed that he was a Scorpio and not a Sadge especially with that tall forehead, right? lol!

I also encourage you if you want to know more about this and the understand the precession of the equinoxes and how it effects the constellations and the origins of both zodiacs you can read about it here: (it is anti-tropical astrology though)
http://www.lunarplanner.com/siderealastrology.html

And one in defense of the tropical if you feel like reading more:
http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/zodiacworldview.html

And to make matters worse, the real solar zodiac takes into account the "secret" 13th sign Ophiuchus, which makes the actual dates if astrology takes that constellation into account even more confusing. (and even NASA follows this) Wouldn't we need 13 houses if this were true as each house corresponds to a zodiac sign/influence. What traits would we even assign to this next mystery house? So every house system would be wrong... Something tells me this isn't right... But astronomy and astrology are two different things, and I will not focus on Ophiuchus here. But here is some interesting information for those who would like to learn a good reason why it was not included as one of the official signs, and I don't believe it is one to be honest(that doesn't mean I think it's useless or the solar zodiac means absolutely nothing!) -- read about it here:
http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFive/OphiuchusDilemma.htm

The debate rages on whether it should be included or not....

posted April 16, 2010 09:57 PM         

This article exposes the faults in sidereal zodiac in a very clear, uncomplicated way(this is my favorite out of the ones I've posted so far): http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-argument-for-the-tropical-zodiac-in-vedic-astrol ogy.html

Much longer read but well worth it. This article dwells on the discoveries/theories supporting each zodiac and the origins of both: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5703835/MysteryoftheZodiac

Those two links will help you understand the differences between the zodiacs and why tropical astrology is not just western astrologers living in a fairy tell, but is as equally valid as any other form of astrology! And that the sidereal astrologer's don't have it all figured out, and that there are holes in their arguments as well that they are quite good at hiding. And while it may appear I am just favoring tropical, the reason is you can do just about any search on Google about the sidereal zodiac -- if mentioned the author will usually go on to extensively glorify the use of the sidereal zodiac while condemning tropical astrology as a false zodiac.(they believe in about 400 years the tropical form of astrology will be 100% wrong) I am just evening things out a bit with another point of view!

I found all this out last year, and needless to say my head was spinning and I STILL can't make sense of it all. But my gut kept telling me that tropical astrology was still valid, despite all the people claiming the sidereal system is superior, and laughing at western astrologers. Go to any Vedic-oriented site and the arrogance and anger towards western astrologers is astounding. Most Vedic astrologers blame us for astrology not being taken seriously, and that arrogance is what made me look deeper. They see tropical astrology as a man acting like a little kid refusing to grow up and face the "real" world. I did research for hours after finding out the astrology I practiced didn't really reflect what was going on in the heavens like I thought it did at all, and article after article I read discouraged the use of the tropical and favored the sidereal approach. But... I knew in my gut that the tropical system was still valid -- I observe it in action constantly. I knew that Ptolemy and Linda Goodman didn't base their beliefs/writings on something that didn't have much substance or value because of their preference for tropical astrology. Even the contemporary historian Flavius Josephus who was alive near Jesus's time(the only historian during his time to mention him at all actually) talked about the zodiac signs inlaid on the temple floor, there were twelve loaves of bread signified the twelve zodiac signs and the completion of a year, the 7 branch candlestick (after the 7 planets) had knops lilies and bowls, (70 in all after the 70 stations of the 7 planets) and how their was a breastplate(that the high priest would wear) with TWELVE stones set in(here's the important part) FOUR ROWS each to represent the FOUR SEASONS. This also goes to show that the tropical zodiac was clearly in use before Ptolemy ever influenced the astrologers of the west and it must have been popular at that time as well. They also assigned gem stones according to the month you were born. Why would these people be using the "wrong" zodiac as part of their religion if the focus has always been on the constellations
(especially as part of their religion)

As Josephus says (Antiquities, 3.8 ): "And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning." (Josephus, 75.)

Also, here is some more from Josephus about the temple:

"The Temple had…golden doors of fifty-five cubits altitude and sixteen in breadth; but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea…. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens, excepting that of the twelve signs of the Zodiac, representing living creatures."

From: http://www.gemologyonline.com/birthstones.html

"Josephus in his writings, proclaimed a connection between the twelve stones in the High Priest's breastplate, the twelve months of the year and the twelve signs of the zodiac. It was not until the 18th century in Poland, that there is any documentation of people actually wearing birth stones or zodiac stones. People wore or carried gem stones at first, for their therapeutic and medicinal properties. These properties were then associated with characteristics of the zodiac, making them talismans for those born in the same months."(this was before the Gregorian calendar was around)

posted April 16, 2010 09:58 PM         

Well, if anyone knows who Edgar Cayce is, he was a psychic known as the sleeping prophet. He had a 90 percentile accuracy rate with close to 14,000 readings. To me, Edgar Cayce is the most fascinating man of the 20th century. He had a great deal to say about astrology which would be helpful for anyone willing to research further than what I offer here. He became more of a celebrity after his death than when he was alive. His family and him were so poor that his family would write his readings for clients on gift wrapping paper sometimes, so he wasn't in it for the money. He lived a very poor, simple life. He(by "he" I mean the entities that Edgar channeled) only advocated that there were 12 signs without mentioning the number 13,(he said Job's twelve suns from the bible, the twelve tribes of Israel, and the twelve apostles all represented the twelve signs of the zodiac) and he appeared to advocate the use of the sidereal zodiac but to me the reading doesn't give clear proof of this.(yet sidereal astrologers display this with pride on their sites as another excuse to scoff at the tropical zodiac) Well, apparently these entities that he channeled still are in contact with others that go on to continue Edgar's work, and I know you're thinking "Okay, but how can we be sure that they aren't just making this up?" Well, one person asked several questions to one of the entities channeled through this woman, and my eyes were opened because everything then made perfect sense! And you can tell by the reading, the sheer intelligence of the entity responding to this person's questions, that this was no fabricated response. And as they say, the truth will set you free. Now I understand how both zodiacs are valid, and despite the arguments that have begun between astrologers and will continue in the future as they keep making new discoveries -- I can sit back and relax -- unafraid that I'm just seeing what I want to see. And I can feel confident in the methods which I use knowing that there is a spiritual reason why it works and tropical astrology is not the bastardized form of astrology some sidereal astrologer's view it as. And I don't have to feel "at war", or feel like I need to take sides. For a while I thought, maybe I should not pay attention to elements/signs and just look at what the planets are doing because I was afraid on placing emphasis on something that might not be accurate. Those thoughts won't bother me anymore as I can see that each method is like gazing out a different window with an entirely different view, and while I might have a preference for one view over the other -- none of them are wrong or superior over the other in the long run. It's amazing just how close to the truth the idea of your Vedic chart being completed karma, and your tropical chart being the major influences in your chart that you are perfecting and learning from in this body/life. I've seen some people on LL have used this theory, and the entities seem to agree/share that theory but have more to add so you can see things in much clearer, brighter light.

Here's the link, it's only necessary to read the answer to the first question the entity answers but read on if you feel compelled for more info:
http://www.ascensionlovespirituality.com/LLResearch/LLResearchTranscriptsFebruary7.htm

Once you finish this if you've gotten this far, hopefully you will feel much more confident and have a greater understanding of astrology as a whole. I realize that this is a really long thread jam-packed with information, but I feel like this is a critical issue which very much needs to be discussed. For the few of you who may read this, I hope you got something out of it. May we continue to expand our astrological knowledge, and not waste time arguing.(not really worried about LL though) And if you do come across someone who is ready and willing to try to show you why astrology(especially western astrology) is nonsense -- you'll be prepared. And you really still are a Libra or whatever you are, and you are not wrong to claim that sign as your own. It is still your birthright and you are completely entitled in every way to do so!

By the way, I just discovered a fascinating thread on another board discussing this very subject amongst some astrologers there and learned even more. If you'd like to read it, continue here:
http://astronuts.tribe.net/thread/c0273cc6-e84d-4cb7-82e2-4f4c02306957

And the Native Americans have their seasonal zodiac(I am unsure of the origin) that closely resembles the descriptions of their tropical zodiac counterparts: http://www.whats-your-sign.com/native-american-animal-symbols.html

posted April 16, 2010 10:38 PM         

I have Sun in 5'20 Tropical Scorpio, but my Sun is not in the Libra constellation even though it is in Sidereal Libra.

It is in the Virgo constellation.
Sun leaves Virgo constellation and enter Libra Constellation on October 31st. I was born on October 29th.

I always point that out to any Sidereal Astrologer that gets preachy about Sidereal Zodiac being the only true zodiac.

Because Tropical Zodiac is based on the Northern Hemisphere seasons, I don't like using it for people born in the Southern Hemisphere.

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement

posted April 16, 2010 11:00 PM         

And yeah, it's pretty amazing how every vedic astrologer claims "our zodiac actually shows what is happening in the sky when you are born", yet they assign 30 degrees to every sign. Yet none on the constellations are exactly 30 degrees differing in all shapes and sizes.

posted April 16, 2010 11:14 PM         

As you know, I am tropical zodiac astrologer.
Of course, I prefer the tropical zodiac astrology. I have been very accurate with it,and so I believe that tropical zodiac works well.

I believe that it's valid to use the tropical zodiac for people born in Northern Hemisphere.

However,I am not sure about people born in Southern Hemisphere like Australians,New Zealanders,South Americans,South Africans.

I like the idea of using the actual Constellation Zodiac to check for star themes in people's lives that might give insight into their life purpose. I think of the Constellation Zodiac reflecting our cosmic self.

Both my tropical Scorpio Mercury and Venus are both in Sidereal Libra Zodiac and Libra Constellation. My Mercury is conjunct the Beta Libra star, Zuben Elschamali.

My tropical Pisces Moon is in both Sidereal Aquarius Zodiac and Aquarius Constellation. My Moon is conjunct both the Alpha Aquarius star, Sadalmelik and Theta Aquarius star,Ancha.

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement

A Different Mind Is Not A Deficient Mind.

posted April 17, 2010 12:16 AM         

That's enough about Edgar, but this link explains how I feel about astrology. The entities information about tropical being the masculine study of astrology, and sidereal the feminine made perfect sense to. It also goes on to explain how the tropical is the vertical and clearly marked influences from birth, and the sidereal is the horizontal harder to pin down influences working within the soul. If you feel like reading it, it's the most important link out of the ones I posted:
[URL=http://www.ascensionlovespirituality.com/LLResearch/LLResearchTranscriptsFebruary7.htm]http://www.ascensionlovespirituality.com/LLResearch/LLResearchTranscriptsFebruary7.htm[/ URL]

I don't know about you, but I could tell that it wasn't made up. Just too much truth to it and it felt right.

Personally out of the aspects you posted you seem more scorp to me,(i've been lurking here for a while lol) but well, I am just sensitive to Plutonic energy I suppose. But people act differently in real life than they do on the net.

I wish I knew in the constellations, not sidereal, where my planets where. It would be helpful but astro.com doesn't have that option I don't think.

posted April 17, 2010 12:37 AM         

well my Sun is strongly modified by very transneptunian dwarf planet,dwarf candidate energy.

Sun in 5'20 Scorpio
conjunct transneptunian dwarf planet/plutino,Ixion in 5'25 Scorpio
(a cazimi aka in the heart of the Sun)

contraparallel transneptunian dwarf planet,Orcus with 1 minute of arc
(very close contraparallel...I use no more than 30 minutes of arc for minor planets)

both Orcus and Ixion have 3:2 orbital resonance with Neptune like Pluto,and so they are classed as plutinos and named after mythological underworld characters. They are astronomically similar to Pluto,and so they are astrologically similar too.

I have Sun oppose transneptunian dwarf planet candidate,Sedna with 44 minutes of arc in Right Ascension

named after the Inuit Goddess of the Oceans/Seas and Underworld called Adlivun.

conjunct Geocentric South Eris Node in 5'29 Scorpio
oppose/conjunct Heliocentric Eris Nodes in 5'30 Taurus/Scorpio

(so I am very strongly connected to to the collective energy of transneptunian dwarf planet, Eris)

My Sun is also conjunct the Jupiter/Pluto midpoint with 47 minutes of arc

in Right Ascension, my Sun is conjunct the Neptune/Pluto midpoint with 33 minutes of arc.

My Mercury in 18'21 Scorpio
squares transneptunian dwarf planet,Makemake in 16'20 Leo
sextile Geocentric Pluto Node in 18'18 Capricorn
biquintile Eris with 6 minutes of arc

My Venus in 21'17 Scorpio
trine Geocentric Pluto Node in 21'16 Cancer
trine Orcus in 22'28 Cancer

I have Venus sextile Haumea with 46 minutes of arc and quincunx Eris with 10 minutes of arc in Right Ascension

I also have transneptunian dwarf planet,dwarf planet candidate aspects aspecting my Moon,Midheaven,Ascendant,and Mars.

I only talked about Sun,Mercury,Venus because they are placed in Scorpio and modified by transneptunian energies

I believe that you're actually picking up my very strong transneptunian energies (especially Orcus and Ixion which are the plutinos) which I feel make me strongly relate to Pluto which is a transneptunian dwarf planet.

I can strongly relate to the star themes of Virgo and Libra.

Libra Constellation used to be the Scorpion's Claws too. It originally was connected to Scorpio. So my Mercury and Venus are in the former Scorpion's Claws.

A matter of fact, beta Libra star's name, Zuben Elschamali actually comes from the term Northern Scorpion's Claw.

------------------
Raymond

Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement