Here we go again. I hope you’re doing well.

I once more took a question from Quora, again, to expand on it a bit.

“Is tropical or sidereal more accurate, and why?

These question keeps showing up regularly. But the answer never changes: neither. Both can work really well, but that depends, ultimately, on the astrologer.”

This is a little annoying, for a number of reasons.

First, there is no such thing — or, at least, there was no such thing — as “sidereal” and “tropical” astrology. This is not a buffet in which you choose the Zodiac flavor you like best.

What happens is as follows.

Western astrology divides the Zodiac based on the Equinoxes (points in which the Sun is halfway through from one Solstice to the other; hence tropical, related to the Tropics). When the Sun crosses the Equator from the Southern into the Northern hemisphere, Spring (in the Northern hemisphere), the astrological year, and the Zodiac begins in the West.

Indian astrology (I don’t call it “Vedic” because there is no astrology in the Vedas; the Jyotisha is a Vedanga, and “Vedangic astrology” sounds very, very weird) divides the Zodiac based on the position of a star (that was “sidereal” means).

The most common star used is Spica; it’s very bright, and easily visible in the sky when the Sun is in Aries.

Both divide it in twelve 30-degree chunks (which means: no, Indians don’t use “the true positions of the constellations”, they just start the Zodiac more or less joined to the beginning of the Aries constellation).

This is done differently for a variety of reasons (historical, cultural, metaphysical, technical…), but what really matters here is that this is done within and as the basis of two different sets of techniques.

The astrological symbols are not exactly the same, and their interpretation is subtly different; the relationships between them are not equal, etc.

In short: Western astrology works with tropical Zodiac; Indian astrology works with sidereal Zodiac. Both might work very well (this is the other thing I will talk about, see below), but just randomly choosing what you like from each of them only produces confusion.

It’s like putting a picture on a wall.

You can nail it — use a hammer to insert a nail.

You can screw it up — use a screwdriver to insert a screw.

But don’t try to hammer the nail with the screwdriver.

The other thing that annoys me in this kind of question is that people try to use the authority of the craft for themselves.

Somehow, proving the superiority of one kind of astrology over the other should also prove the superiority of the astrologers that use one over the ones that use the other.

This is obviously not true.

I’ve said a million times, and this is certainly not the last one: astrology is a practical craft. The “product” is not a direct consequence of sound technique, but its application on a concrete situation by a competent artist.

There are horrible astrologers everywhere; and the good ones are not restricted to any type of it, either.

PS. The dumb version of this is the question of “being a true Aries/Taurus/etc”.

Yes, “being an Aries” means your Sun is in Aries. If it’s in the first 24 degrees of it, it’s in Pisces.

What that means: nothing.

Joseph Conrad’s Mars is conjunct, as I said, Neptune by antiscion. His Venus is in Scorpio, conjunct Unukhalhai, the heart of the Serpent. A fitting image of the luring of the Sea, of the desires — and also of the dangers of Nature in general (also… of the dangers of the beautiful mysterious savage woman of Heart of Darkness).

(Not related to the Sea, but his Mercury is conjunct Ras Alhague, the head of the Serpent Charmer. Also not related, this is exactly conjunct Marlon Brando’s - Colonel Kurtz’s — Jupiter. The horror! The horror!).

Speaking of marine stories, Herman Melville’s ruler of the tenth house is conjunct a star. Yes, you guessed right, it’s the Tail of the Whale, Deneb Kaitos. Hast thou seen the White Whale?

Ernest Hemingway’s Venus is on Cancer, conjunct Pluto by antiscion and conjunct Canopus, the star in the keel of the Ship. Things on the ship shouldn’t go deep… He also has Saturn, the Old Man, conjunct the Moon, the Sea, by antiscion.

Finally… about the course I mentioned in the last email.

Here’s what I plan to do.

There will be four lessons.

Lesson one. The basics.

1. Basic notions of spherical geometry. This is not technical. I will describe the concepts that will facilitate the understanding of everything else: circles, spheres, great circles, angles on a sphere, etc.

2. The basic model of the World — the Celestial Spheres. A general outline of the Cosmos as the ancients saw it.

Lesson two. The main circles.

1) The Equator, the Ecliptic, the Tropics, the Polar circles. The circles that do not depend on geographical location. The colures (they’re not important, in fact, but it doesn’t hurt to mention them).

2) The Meridian and hour circles. The Horizon. The circles that move as we move.

Lesson three. Dividing the Sky.

1. The signs: what are they, where are they.

2. The angles. The foundations of the houses. Why most house systems fail at the poles.

3. Dividing the division: the most common house systems. This, again, is definitely not technical, and I am not going into the boring and sterile historical discussion about which came first. In fact, this is probably the only time I’ll mention it.

   Lesson four. Bits and pieces.

1. How to locate things in the sky.

2. The reasoning behind Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions. Don’t worry, after the other lessons, this will be easy.

3. The motion of the planets within the spheres — the ancient explanation for retrogradation, apogee, perigee, etc. Yes, I’ll go back to circles, epicycles, eccentrics, etc. But, once more, this won’t be technical and the jargon will be kept to a minimum.

   I am open to hearing suggestions on it.

   The idea is to do live classes, one per week, on Wednesdays (or Saturday if everyone agrees on it) with the technological aids of paper sheets, pens, pencils, and styrofoam balls.

   Live students will have access to the recordings, of course; but I intent to package them and sell it as a course later on.

   The time… to be honest, that will depend on where most of the students live. As long as it’s not during my jiu-jitsu classes or when I’m picking my kid at school, my schedule is flexible.

   It’s a short course, and I don’t think it should be expensive. I thought of something around 60 dollars.

   Some people already told me they were interested. If you’re not one of them, but think it would be cool to do it, answer this newsletter, or reach me at [email protected], and I’ll send you more info as soon as it’s available.

That’s it for now. God bless us all, see you soon.