Not sure how to clearly ask this question. It’s puzzled me for a long time.
In the northern hemisphere the Sun begins it upward northern motion on the winter solstice (Capricorn/starved) and becomes exalted/proud at the spring equinox. How is the Sun still considered to be in the same weakness and strength at these points in both hemispheres when the quantity of light is opposite?
The Sun begins it northern motion at the same time in both hemispheres. At the ascending equinox ("vernal equinox" in the northern hemisphere) the Sun is just ascending over the equator. At the Cancer solstice the Sun is at its most northern position from the equator. That is true in both hemispheres, and that is what the tropical zodiac is based on.
As to the quantity of light being opposite, it is an interesting question. The direct answer in regard to tropical astrology is that the quantity or quality of light is not relevant, because the quantity and quality of light don't have anything to do with where Aries, Capricorn, etc. are. That doesn't mean the light doesn't have any impact whatsoever, just that the signs are not a place where you would see that impact.
This is great feedback and has helped my processing.
Tropical system is a seasonal system according to spring equinox being 0 Aries for the Northern Hemisphere. The point you bring up @vaknath is pertinent. Aries is Mesha, both names denoting the goat or a ram which has the connotations of spring and breaking though of growth from winter. Libra or Tula is a measurement of weight, which is an indication of the harvest of autumn from the summer growth. The experience for these is opposite in the southern hemisphere so perhaps the question remains about evaluating the Sun for the Southern Hemisphere.
@quasar259 But then, what would happen on the equator? And in it´s vicinty; say we live 100 kms north of the equator and our brother lives 100 kms south of it - would different rules for astrology apply to these nearby places?
Staffan
@staffan I don't have answers really and understand we are using one set of principles that have been developed from a northern hemispheric point of view, maybe that's right for some reason, I don't know, it certainly is simpler. I don't think we can deny the connection between seasonality an our conceptualization of the zodiac. I'm not suggesting we adopt different systems but realize that the question remains intriguing and worth keeping an open mind.
@quasar259 I´m pretty sure I´ve heard Ernst refuting this idea somewhere, and quite recently. And explaining why it works well as it is. I just can´t remember where and when.
But of course you are right, doors should always be open. I just think that we run into problems in this case, though.
Staffan
Vic DiCara talks somewhere about the seasons and the tropical zodiac being siblings. The equinoxes and solstices are the facts, and there are two large patterns that derive from them.
One is the seasons, which is the physical impact of the earth going around the Sun. Even in one hemisphere the seasons change drastically...Florida and Alaska are very much in the same hemisphere, but have very different weather and seasons.
The tropical zodiac relates the geocentric movement of the Sun to the Earth's equator. If the equator extended into space, you would be able to see it if you looked into the night sky. From ascending equinox to descending equinox the Sun will always be north of the equator when you look, no matter where you are on the Earth. (check this out with Stellarium)
The point is that the equinoxes and solstices do in fact create the seasons and the zodiac, but the seasons do not create the zodiac nor the zodiac the seasons...that is why they are siblings.
I do think the seasons are important though in practical terms. I'm vaguely aware that ayurveda says the balance of doshas changes in different seasons, but that sort of thing must be able to be adjusted based on the specific place and season, which the tropical zodiac doesn't do, even in the northern hemisphere.
@j0sh4rp3 If I understand you right, that is the answer then. Sun is always north of the equinox, no matter where you are on the Earth.
Great!
Staffan
@j0sh4rp3 this is helpful. I have not considered the sun moving below the equator if its line was extended deeper into space. It developing my understanding of how Aries is going expresses in various parts of the world.
I have also heard Earth’s axis considered to be the central channel aligned with chakras that are activated at the solstices and equinoxes. This way the zodiac is considered to be true regardless of the hemisphere one is casting a horoscope. As the sun reaches summer solstice it touches the crown and reaches the root chakra at winter solstice. This seems to align with your insight as well.
There is the concept of "ritu", which is usually translated as season and listed as six and gives descriptions of what those seasons are like in northern India. I've always wondered how much that impacts me being in the Midwest of the United States. ऋतु - ṛtu also means "the right or fit time for anything". It makes sense to me that the right or fit time for something would change according to your place and culture. So in that way the ṛtu could be a way of adapting something to the local place, especially in terms of muhurta.
It’s interesting to contemplate the Sun being exalted in the southern hemisphere as the days are becoming shorter. I see the sun moving through changing/fixed/mutable signs simultaneously in both hemispheres. The question is, how does the sun’s avasthas stay the same regardless of the hemisphere?
These responses have been very helpful.