Hey everyone,
I would love to get anyone's opinion on this thought process I had the other day, in regards to using the Tropical sign zodiac.
I was reading the Graha Sutras, where Ernst describes the Sun as solid, consistent, firm, steadfast, and foundational to the chart. Furthermore, the moon is described as changeable, adaptable, receptive, and constantly evolving.
Therefore, this would make logical sense that the Sun's Signs would remain consistent and steadfast over time, acting as a stable, unchanging foundation to the chart. The Sun's behavior is predictable and never changes, so shouldn't his signs always be the same as well? Furthermore, the Moon's Nakshatras appear to be moving and changing over time (in Ernst's system), just like the Moon himself.
The Sun signs behave like the Sun, and the Moon's Nakshatras behave like the Moon. I just thought that was interesting and wanted to share with you all, cheers.
That makes sense to me.
At the same time, his signs should be the same relative to what?
With tropical they are the same relative to the equinox, and they change relative to the stars. With sidereal the signs are fixed relative to the stars and move relative to the equinox, and the sun is a star, so shouldn't that be the more important consideration?
But I agree with you and I think it is a good way to think about it.
Exactly, it's the same relative to the path of the Sun across the Earth's equator, and the procession of the equinox.
Yes, that was my point, though I realize I didn't make that clear enough in my original post. It only makes sense that the Sun Signs stay fixed to the path of the Sun moving across the Equator. Why would the signs of the Sun change while the Sun's pathway stays the same? Why would the Sun signs be dependent on the distant fixed stars and not the Sun itself?
To me, the most evident omen about the stars being irrelevant from the Sun´s perspective, is the fact that they become invisible for the naked eye the moment that the Sun shows up. Just as Ernst points up.
And then, as I´ve said a couple of times before on this forum, that in my homecountry Sweden we would make complete fools of ourselves if we would celebrate the Sun´s turning north in the middle of January, three weeks after the most obvious astronomical omen of the year, which is the Sun not showing up at the winter solstice.
Staffan
To me, the most evident omen about the stars being irrelevant from the Sun´s perspective, is the fact that they become invisible for the naked eye the moment that the Sun shows up. Just as Ernst points up.
And then, as I´ve said a couple of times before on this forum, that in my homecountry Sweden we would make complete fools of ourselves if we would celebrate the Sun´s turning north in the middle of January, three weeks after the most obvious astronomical omen of the year, which is the Sun not showing up at the winter solstice.
Staffan