November 16, 2007 at 12:35 pm #26043
… Walter Cruttenden, an astrophysicist, thinks so. I link to an article below exploring the idea. This article adds in the putative identity of our other sun – Sirius – but I wouldn’t take that part as true, there is no evidence of this.
Our western astrology, I think, is founded on a misconception – that the sun enters ‘signs of the zodiac’ at the same time each calendar year, as measured from the vernal equinox. A few western astrologers are now doing what jyotish vedic astrologers have been doing for 5,000 years, and calculating sign positions from where the actual constellations are in the sky. In this I believe they are returning to true practice of Babylon and Egpyt… I’m learning this system. Ninety-nine percent of western astrologers are in ignorance of the astronomical truth in my opinion.
In 200 AD, the sign of Aries as measured tropically (from the equinox) was in the constellation of Aries – they matched. These days, because of the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes, the sign of Aries measured tropically is about 80% in the constellation of Pisces. If measuring tropically I believe the sun sign is incorrect for 80% of people, that is, the majority of people who think they are Geminis are in fact Tauruses, and so on. If measuring sidereally, one adjusts for the precession of the equinoxes and arrives at the true result.
But a major question remains, what is the reason for the precession in the first place? Why do the signs appear to move in this way? The theory has always been that ‘the earth wobbles like a spinning top’, that is, all is caused by unusual movement in the earth’s rotation.
But science is gradually changing its view – we now find that, where before it was assumed binary stars were a rare phenomenon, it is now thought by many that the majority of star systems are binary. And if ours was binary, it might explain precession better. The path of the earth in space in a binary system would be totally consistent with what we see in precession. If precession were a ‘spinning top’ phenomenon this could not explain why sometimes it appears to speed up, and why its movement is quite irregular, but the impact of the gravity of two suns could explain this.
Also, if precession was caused solely by movement of the earth, bodies in the solar system also ought to show precession – but they don’t.
This theory of twin suns was apparently also expounded by certain ancient Vedic astronomers. They used it to explain the reasons why there were sometimes golden ages on earth and sometimes only iron ages. It is to do with proximity, not to either sun, but to the gravitic point of intersection between them – one could call this the neutral point or the yuan point!
Perhaps we have not only two souls, but two suns as well. More of this in the article below.
Walter Cruttenden’s original book, ‘The Lost Star of Myth and Time’, includes alot of discussion on what the other star might be – black holes, brown dwarfs and dead stars are amongst the possibilities. He also looks at some stars such as Sirius etc. but personally I think the first lot are more likely to be correct. He also tackles stone circles and suchlike with alot of interesting insights. jNovember 16, 2007 at 3:34 pm #26044
I heard about this awhile ago about a mssing piece from modern astrology. Mainly do to the hording and control of power, and the power of foresight is and was a big one, today mainly in economic elite circles have I heard it being used. I never heard of it as a sun more a magnetic influence that might have been a star, maybe its a blackhole. I am not on board with the whole two sun idea but astrology I feel is missing a piece. I find it to be another watered down tradition. I was also interested in David Twikens Introduction to Qi Men Dun Jia, I heard some call it denje and reference Lemuria, not 100% sure they are talking about the same thing. But this might also be a case of the real deal un water down Feng Shui. Michael called it a gaurded chinese secret.November 16, 2007 at 11:10 pm #26046
It is evolving. In fact there might have been a master plan to whip the slate clean as to maybe break tradition, reduce arogance, and bring flow to stagnet waters aka reinvent the wheel. Ignorance can be a gift.
“For example the my person style of natal astrology points to potential energies”
I like that aproach. I have alwas been a fan of changing my stars. I like astrology as it can make things conscious that you might not have noticed. I really love the whole process of getting my chart read, its been a while. My grandma had mine maid when I was born.November 17, 2007 at 4:00 am #26048
Actualy while reading about this with precession and nutation I couldn’t realy understund the forces behind it. Wasn’t even close and had to stop the thinking beacase of the other stuff in the course. I think I will buy this book and look at the physics again. It’s also interesting to ad some spirituality to the matter you studying. when younger I thought it was just in theroretical physics I could find such connections actually it’s everywhere. Like it. 🙂November 17, 2007 at 5:28 am #26050
I am learning sidereal astrology from an excellent astrologer.
For some reason I am a person whom people confide in. When I first contacted this teacher he told me his house was in difficulty because his lady had just been diagnosed with a very unpleasant disease. Later, he told me confidentially that the moment the tests came back positive, a certain conjunction occurred in her chart. This conjunction would have been months out tropically, but sidereally it was correct almost to the minute. This is the power of looking at what is actually in the sky.
We don’t need to look too far to find out why western astrology stopped doing that, it’s no conspiracy IMHO. Ptolemy was not an astronomer, although a great mathematician – he codified western astrology at a time when the tropical signs were indeed in alignment with the constellations in the sky, so there was no error working that way in his day. Then suddenly we had the dark ages, and the christians were never interested in astrology. It took years to piece it back together, we are still doing this. As a magician, it always puzzled me that when the moon was supposed to be ‘in Cancer’, you could see it wasn’t! But sidereally it checks out, and alot of timings check out.
My teacher tells me he has successfully called every American election since becoming a sidereal astrologer. If I learn enough before the next one maybe I will make a prediction here on the forum.
I find western astrology mostly too vague, too psychological at the moment. What we have in astrology is something completely real, we have to understand the reality of it and not be fooled by ‘psychology’ IMHO. Alot of it is doubtful and the more self-knowledge I gain the more doubt I have in it. The movements of the stars are precise; if nothing else their timings are accurate.
Dog is completely right to say certain things have been lost; in this age of re-discovery of the sacred though, they are coming back to light. For example there is always great doubt in conventional western astrology why exaltations occur in certain places – in Babylon it turns out that planetary exaltations were timed with great public festivals and rituals, in other words it was part of an alchemical/magical system.
Our western approach has been steadily less and less accurate for the last two thousand years, since we have taken the approach that the ‘signs of the zodiac’ are arbitrary divisions in the sky counted from the earth’s movement only. (This is bizarre of us since in this we follow the greeks who never even realized that the earth moves at all!) In my opinion it is dead wrong. The zodiac signs represent the constellations after which they are named, and should be moving with them, precessionally.
jNovember 17, 2007 at 5:52 am #26052
Here is a list of historical personages, without exception famous for their generalship and the role they played in waging and winning wars, their leadership and monarchy gifts, their tyranny, etc. The list comes from Cyril Fagan, the great Irish astrologer who did so much to put western sidereal astrology back on the agenda. He writes:
>>Seeing that the Sun, significator of kingship, is exalted in the imperial Aries, and that this constellation is ruled by Mars, the war lord, it is not surprising to find that some of the worlds greatest kings, dictators, tyrants, autocrats, and power politicians were born with the Sun in this constellation<<
Here is the list he gives, with degree of sun in Aries:
Edward II (27)
Don Pedro I (20)
Richard II (16)
Catherine de Medici (14)
Philip III (16)
Earl of Strafford (13)
Oliver Cromwell (25)
Catherine II of Russia (21)
Napoleon III (8)
Alexander II (17)
Karl Marx (22)
Admiral von Raeder (12)
Adolf Hitler (8)
J. von Ribbentrop (17)
Rudolf Hess (14)
The kicker though is this: if their charts are done *tropically*, that is, using the standard western system of today, each of these people are seen to have the sun in Taurus. Taurus is ruled by Venus and the moon is exalted in it – it is as far from being warlike as could be imagined. The ancients always insisted that that Aries was a sign of war, rulership and monarchy, they never said any such thing about Taurus. The idea that any of these people had the sun in Taurus to me makes a complete mockery of astrology!
If you know people who think they are Taureans who are also domineering, commanding persons, in my opinion it is quite likely their suns are really in Aries.
I give all this info to lend colour to my rejection of DamonM's view, although of course he's perfectly entitled to it – but I don't agree that one chart is as useful as another; I think some are right and some are wrong, and that astrology can be a very accurate science if the correct methods are followed. Thus I do find that predictive astrology is of profound help if the techniques used are correct; magicians often time things by the stars and therefore they are seen to be important for understanding the nature of the moment on the earth.
I believe our understanding of it may be evolving, but has not yet reached the heights of Egypt and Babylon.
As part of what I'm learning I will also be understanding 'astrocartography', that is, the science of predicting where on earth a person's interests will be best-served and where they will enjoy the best life, where the energies are most in harmony for them, and so on. If I get good at this I might offer it as a service to others. I believe astrology in general can provide great help in life, not only in that way, but also in medicine for example. We have barely scratched the surface yet of what it can do.
jNovember 17, 2007 at 5:56 am #26054
>>It’s also interesting to ad some spirituality to the matter you studying<<
… the entire point of spirituality being that it applies everywhere to everything! I had a similar feeling to you at school, in regards to the nature of numbers, in chemistry lessons doing distillations… all seemed in some way deep or moving or beautiful or to have profundity that went beyond what was being taught. As for biology, well, I'm sure I don't have to talk about that here! jNovember 17, 2007 at 6:34 am #26056November 17, 2007 at 6:37 am #26058
Do you know an easy formula like adding a couple of days to see wich sun sign you are in and if you are in the next or in the one you have believed you where?November 17, 2007 at 7:40 am #26060
Each sign is thirty degrees, if you are anywhere in the first 25 degrees I think for sure you can say sidereally you are in the previous sign. According to my teacher, from whom I’ve learned very little yet, the conversion of a whole tropical chart to a sidereal one is alot more difficult. Different kinds of astronomy are used apparently, the house cusps are different, elevation of the planets above the horizon and method calculation of the horizon and ecliptic are important – still if you move everything back 24 or 25 degrees you will have some idea.
In my opinion the difficulty comes when you try to define the meanings. In this ‘psychological era’ of astrology many of the signs’ meanings have moved away from what is strictly relevant in their definitions IMHO, and from what the ancients said about them; the ‘new wave’ of astrologers is much more scholarly than before and is consulting documents as far back as they go. It puts the natures of the signs in a different light.
The sign of virgo is sometimes now considered to have elements of being strong and overbearing for example, or the sign of scorpio has moved from being considered the strongly sexual sign which brooks no arguments to being sweet and loving. My teacher reckons these are the results of actual observations of the signs’ effects, but of the wrong sign – Scorpio has taken on elements of gentle Libra whilst Virgo has acquired some of the elements of Leo. In other words he thinks the entire system of description is out of whack now, just as the tropical system is out of whack with the sky itself.
I certainly see his point. Dick Cheney for example, I have a problem seeing him as a liberal, bohemian, humanitarian, rebellious Aquarius, but as a Capricorn, which is what he would be sidereally, he makes sense. My youngest is sister is supposedly Leo but quite plainly is a Cancer, and she was very relieved to hear it – she had a great problem understanding how she was supposed to be so showy according to the books!
I think the change to seeing things this way will be rather slow in astrology, because it is slow in general to realize the importance of astronomy – bizarrely enough! But even more, for the reason change is always difficult in something settled – people don’t like moving out of their comfort zone even if they know they must and will be happier when they have. It relates to the love conversation and to the industrial culture conversation as well therefore. j
That is how tropical Virgo becomes strong and overbearing, Aries gentle and sensitive or Capricorn formal and ambitious, etc. They are Leo, Pisces and Sagittary misnamed, which corruption eventually produces a meaningless hodgepodge to the great detriment of Art.November 17, 2007 at 9:21 am #26062
As I see it the easy formula with taking the 25 degrees back doesn’t work, beacase as you describe things today everything is a complete mich mach (salsa everything have become mixed together.) So beacase of this strange theory to look not at the real constelation at heaven (not taking in account of the movement of the equinox) the signs has been mixed together and if you calculate back 25 degrees you are in the right sign but that sign is also mixed up with the sign before it. So in some sense the new system works as it is beacase the astrologers has changed it in accordance to the theory and there own observations. So if you go back 25 degrees you have to have the earlier descriptions of the signs otherwise you will come absolutely wrong. Difficult stuff for you astrologers to get this things right!
Some deeper questions:
1 If you count back 25 degrees and take into account the earlier descriptions of the signs you. You will miss one aspect. The meanings of this original sign might have changed over time but this is not registrated beacase nowdays the astrologers work from the new model. So it might be wrong anyway. The old system might not have evolved over time though.
2 Another question arises. There might be some spiritual significance to why the new system has been used since the midle age. I can’t hardly belive there isn’t more deeper synchronicity into this than just the theory that its beacase the astrology wasn’t a big subject during this time. Even if, there should be some significant spiritual meening to why the system used did change. Of course this is not a theory a strict astrologer would prefer. Maybe just thinking if we go back to the original knowledge everything will be fine.
Sincerely S DNovember 17, 2007 at 9:40 am #26064
… it requires a more radical overhaul than the quick fix. That’s what I’m working on, fortunately there are many people of better skill than me who have made this their life’s work, so I can count on them to have some idea of the meanings. To put this form of astrology out there at least means you can compare it with what is said in the tropical variety that 99% of people still use in the west. On timings in particular, the impression I have of increased accuracy is startling. On things like the delineation of character I will have to wait until I’ve relearned my trigonometry!
>>There might be some spiritual significance to why the new system has been used since the midle age. I can’t hardly belive there isn’t more deeper synchronicity into this than just the theory that its beacase the astrology wasn’t a big subject during this time.<>Even if, there should be some significant spiritual meening to why the system used did change.<>Of course this is not a theory a strict astrologer would prefer. Maybe just thinking if we go back to the original knowledge everything will be fine.<<
Well I don't think it is possible to go back to all of the original knowledge myself, I believe the basic principles have got to be constantly looked at and the work has got to be done on why things are the way they are. It's a classic case of scientific paradigm shifting a la Thomas Kuhn.
Astrological knowledge is very locale-specific in its highest forms; civilizations form around their understanding of seasonal movements, cycles and so forth. To reconstruct all of that isn't necessary at this time, I don't think, but if we can show greater accuracy in astrology by linking it back to astronomy we are in better shape. All we have to do is look at what is really there, the magical and alchemical applications will come out as well, it is an age when these things are meant to be rediscovered. jNovember 17, 2007 at 12:25 pm #26066
… I’ll tell you what I mean by right and wrong but it’s not to do with this:
>>I find that my approach leaves open the opportunity for all people to find their potential equally without any fixed idea of better or worse, right or wrong as jsun states.<<
I don't look at it in these terms at all, what is there about a person in the chart that is more or less limiting. People are welcome to act as they wish and find the potentials that are in them. If it's being implied that all people have equal potential I wouldn't agree at all, but it is not to 'take away anyone's potential' that I go with one system or another!
I am somebody who wants to see what's there in the chart and I feel some charts show what's there and some don't. To be frank there have been experiments done where people were randomly shown interpretations from other people's charts and said they thought they themselves fitted the descriptions – these were young people though I admit. The mind catches onto an idea.
When you tell a person, you are this kind of person, that's something pretty vague you're telling them. If it's in this sense that one uses astrology – well anything might be right or at least interesting. But I am looking at what is really there; astrologers used to diagnose from the time of illness of the patient. This is either right or it's wrong.
In magic, in medical astrology, and in locational astrology, for example, you have to get it right, that is, if you say: "You my friend have gallstones, take lecithin, you will be happy the next ten years in Paris, Texas, and in 22 minutes' time this will be the perfect moment for me to do a blessing for you to send you luckily on your way thither' – well if I do these things from a tropical chart I have found they contain inaccuracies. It's that simple. That is the way ancients used astrology. To see the energies, not to judge the person.
On psychology, when one speaks of a person's 'potentials' and 'proclivities', the this-might-happens, the watch-the-tendency-tos, there is alot of wiggle-room. But when it comes to the things that are interesting to me, there's alot less. It's certainly not that the person is better or worse, right or wrong, but the system may well be in what matters. If I can look at a chart and say, you fell in love for the first time in March of 1993, and I'm right, that chart has something right about it which has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with worldly destiny, which is how I see it and what I look for.
BTW Vedic astrology although it's sidereal as well is not what I study, I am studying western sidereal astrology coming ultimately from a Babylon approach. Chinese astrology is completely different and I know nothing about it, however I know charts are being offered here on this very site actually. jNovember 17, 2007 at 4:24 pm #26068
When studying astrology there is always some kind of conection betwean what the society knows about the universe and what it means spirituality isn’t it. So when we for instance found pluto that had something to do with the humans evolution of understunding things and there development. It’s a thinking based on this I try to tell you there might be reason for or a symbolic analogy betwean why they used a system that wasn’t correct and some happening at that time.
quite wichy wachy I most admit but something like this was may intention to say to you.
I can even make up a theory: Not completed jet but a start; Ok not much of a theory either. We put it like this. They maybe had an old model so that this develpopment of mixing signs could develope beacase the modern times is more complex and the new system developing from it was more evolved in some sence.
Sincerely S DNovember 17, 2007 at 5:27 pm #26070
… to look at it this way, although when you say:
>>They maybe had an old model so that this develpopment of mixing signs could develope beacase the modern times is more complex and the new system developing from it was more evolved in some sence.<<
… I'm not exactly sure who 'they' are.
Yes if you want to look at it that way there's no reason why not. I wouldn't look at it that way myself. j
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.