Thread by @rubedo_ro

Some questions about the zodiac, the fixed stars and their subdivisions. Follow the thread:

1. Inspired by some threads exposed by @edward on lunar mansions and fixed stars, there is an extensive use of fixed stars in the constellation aspect in parallel with the Tropical Zodiac.

2. The curious thing is that the interpretation of the stars in this context is separated from their tropical position, considering only their isolated aspect in reference to their original constellation within the "barbarian sphere"

3. 3. What woke me up for this "snap" was a phrase by the astrologer Ehsan Khazeni in which he states that the contextualization of fixed stars without understanding the nakshatra in which they occupy gives only "50% of the interpretation".

4. It makes perfect sense. Both nakshatras or manzils and decans are marked by asterisms that make the zodiac "symmetrical" and "functional", since in terms of the constellation they are unequal.

5. However, it is my impression, but on the part of Western astrologers is it simply ignored? I question honestly because I know that the interpretation of fixed stars is a detailed part of the design of an Astrological Chart.

6. If we consider this reasoning starting from the Khazeni analogy, we see the coexistence of several interpretive possibilities about the stars as asterisms demarcating subdivisions:

7. First possibility: consider only the sidereal subdivision of decans and manzils in parallel and complement to the Tropical Zodiac.

Second possibility: to interpret the fixed stars as has already been done, but subjecting them to the place they occupy in the Tropical Zodiac.

8. or

Third possibility: ignore the sidereal stars and consider the original symbolic demarcations they occupy in the Tropical Zodiac.

9. Because, being quite sincere, conditions such as "via combusta" only make sense by prioritizing one of the possibilities listed. Or just considering primary qualities.

10. But still, by definition, since the degrees are occupied by the "most evil stars" in the zodiac, the visible sidereal stars are in another sign and, therefore, under another planetary rulership.

11. In the interpretation of Nativities itself this can have a significant impact. Example: a Nativity that has the Sun together with Spica, will have a classic interpretation of the aspect, that's ok. But, considering the reasoning developed:

12. Will Spica be interpreted as a star occupying 23º of Libra, where it is based? 23rd of Libra is bounded by the tropical mansion "Al Zubana". Would it then have a different interpretation?

13. And a Nativity in which the Sun occupies the 17th Virgo in the Tropical Zodiac, in the mansion "Al Simak", which was the original degree occupied by Spica? Do I consider the same effects as if the Sun were attached to this star, taking it as virtual and ignoring the sidereal?

14. These are the questions I leave open for consideration. All opinions are welcome.

Topics I used as a reference:

@edward threads about fixed stars and mansions:

About Lunar Mansions:

Lecture by Ehsan Khazeni:

@threadreaderapp , please, unroll and compile :)

@threadreaderapp please unroll