How to introduce Sidereal Astrology to someone new?

[Lance]

So, I'm trying to practice with people, but they all seem to know and love their Tropical Sun and Moon signs.

Has anybody found a good way to present this new information to a "client"? They all just seem to kind of shut off when I tell them I use a different method than the one with which they are familiar.

I've been thinking of giving them information about personality characteristics without referring to their Sun or Moon sign, but... I don't know.

Any suggestions?

[Danica]

First, stun them with some prognostics (from recent past and the current period).

Then, proceed as if Tropical astrology is a non-issue, for example:
you: Your Sun is in the constellation of Aquarius, and your Moon in Cancer...
they: wait - what???!!!
you: yes, the signs of the popular astrology that people are most familiar with are not astrological constellations, they are based on earth's seasonal motion (beginning of spring), and their connection (overlapping) with the actual astrological constellations vary over time [...][etc.]

[Jim Eshelman]

I mostly stopped doing this decades ago, but still occasionally do it in social settings where people express at least mild curiosity about astrology. The only thing I find that works is when people are pursuing me for information, rather than me trying to sell them on something. (And most people won't pursue it, so the ground gets covered with almost nobody.)

Sample conversation:

THEM: You're an astrologer? That's great, I'm a Cancer.
ME (looking mildly disinterested): Cool, though the popular stuff is a fake zodiac. You're really a Gemini.

If they "bite" and come back with questions, I'll answer them. Otherwise, I drop it. I tend to have a one-liner handy for most signs that I think will hook their particular temperament and make them think I might be right. ("Oh, you're far too interesting to be a Cancer. And I bet you're not a home-body at all," or some such thing.) The key, though, is to say as little as possible and make them draw it out of you (or not waste your time if they aren't really interested).

This is no different from people at a party praising Wine XYZ, and my saying, "If you actually go to the winery, you get stuff that puts this to shame. For these grocery store bottles, they buy their grapes on the cheap from the central valley. near Bakersfield."

FWIW, since you asked

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

A client is different from a social situation.

The thing is, people who think they are a tropical Cancer are a tropical Cancer. If you tell them they're wrong they're really a Gemini, they think you mean they are a tropical Gemini, even if you tell them you're talking about a different zodiac. Most people will not understand and you will lose them trying to make them change what they "know" to fit what appears to be your personal worldview.

There is a difference between telling somebody they're really a Gemini not a Cancer and telling them you use a different zodiac, and it's complicated, but they have this characteristic, and this one, and this one. Don't get into the zodiac till they ask, and make them ask repeatedly because most people can't understand and you don't have time to go over the details. Then suggest they get Gleadow's book out of the library.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes, it's important to remember that, in general, astrology is not there for the client.

Astrology is there for the astrologer. The astrologer is there for the client.

[Lance]

How does everybody know she is a Gemini who thinks she is a Cancer..?!?! lol

Thank you all for your responses. Good stuff, all.

[mikestar13]

Yes, it's important to remember that, in general, astrology is not there for the client.

Astrology is there for the astrologer. The astrologer is there for the client.

Jim. that's priceless! Were I doing astrology professionally, that would be on a plaque on my office wall in a spot where both the client and I could see it easily.

[Lance]

Yeah, I think that's what I've been doing wrong.

Gonna remember that one.

[Jim Eshelman]

Following on Mike's thread about "horary done as we might do natal astrology," I thought I would see what the chart for January 4, 2018, 9:40 AM, Groves, TX might have to say to answer the question, "How does one go about opening clients and other people to the idea of the Sidereal zodiac?"

With today's Sun-Venus conjunction, most questions are probably going to end up having a social component. For example, a quick first look at the chart shows Moon a bit below Descendant (it ends up being about 3° beneath in close (Class 1) square with Jupiter, and wider (Class 2) square with Mars, both separating. With only his one angular planet and its closest aspects, we might say that this is a social solution - a way of interacting with people - that is consistent with Jupiter, grace, community, commonality, and no longer benefiting from aggression or force (the Mars aspect is more "left behind").

But when I popped up the mundoscope to get details, I hit the single closest contact: Pluto is 0°15' from the 12th cusp. I don't care at all that it's the 12th, just that it's a cadent cusp. Pluto is in the immediate background, and was precisely at its most cadent while you were writing the post.

Pluto exactly in the background just means: Don't be weird. Don't be a freak or outside the social norm. In fact, with Moon (dignified in Cancer) on Descendant closely square Jupiter, we have a coherent picture that the minute you asked your question was marked by multiple forms of, "Conform to gracious, social, connecting behavior. Be an ordinary 'just part of the community here, folks' sort of person."

Mars is also in near-partile conjunction with a cadent cusp, so we get a second message of underplaying Mars traits.

BTW, looking at the chart confirms the likely sincerity of the question, because the chart is consistent with the question: Aquarius is rising, and the question is about an Aquarian topic. But, if there is anything to horary tradition (this might be stretching things a bit, and might have come from an era of poor time-keeping and chart calculation tools), when only the first degree of a sign is rising it means, "For some reason, it is too soon to ask this question."

Your Neptune was just past Midheaven. I conclude that you had Neptunian feelings (doubts? confusion? some kind of exhaustion?) while writing the question. Mars was exactly conjunct your Mercury, so you were mentally stimulated and possibly aggravated. But we also can't ignore transiting Uranus 0°04' from your Descendant... your psyche is bubbling around looking for a breakthrough, a break-OUT from your recent psychological space.

Just playing around to see what we can get. Consider it an experiment. Thoughts?

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

Astrology is there for the astrologer. The astrologer is there for the client.

Exactly!

[Lance]

Following on Mike's thread about "horary done as we might do natal astrology," I thought I would see what the chart for January 4, 2018, 9:40 AM, Groves, TX might have to say to answer the question, "How does one go about opening clients and other people to the idea of the Sidereal zodiac?"

With today's Sun-Venus conjunction, most questions are probably going to end up having a social component. For example, a quick first look at the chart shows Moon a bit below Descendant (it ends up being about 3° beneath in close (Class 1) square with Jupiter, and wider (Class 2) square with Mars, both separating. With only his one angular planet and its closest aspects, we might say that this is a social solution - a way of interacting with people - that is consistent with Jupiter, grace, community, commonality, and no longer benefiting from aggression or force (the Mars aspect is more "left behind").

Yeah, I used to get really frustrated when people didn't, you know, just take me at my word. I used to be, in certain circles, a sort of "accepted know-it-all." Now that I'm no longer in those circles, I'm more of an rejected know-it-all. Or at least people don't just take me at my word anymore. It's been a learning process. Anyway, this used to trigger a lot of arguments, and I'm definitely tired of that tail-chase.

But when I popped up the mundoscope to get details, I hit the single closest contact: Pluto is 0°15' from the 12th cusp. I don't care at all that it's the 12th, just that it's a cadent cusp. Pluto is in the immediate background, and was precisely at its most cadent while you were writing the post.

Pluto exactly in the background just means: Don't be weird. Don't be a freak or outside the social norm. In fact, with Moon (dignified in Cancer) on Descendant closely square Jupiter, we have a coherent picture that the minute you asked your question was marked by multiple forms of, "Conform to gracious, social, connecting behavior. Be an ordinary 'just part of the community here, folks' sort of person."

Yes. That would make sense to me as sort of "Don't be an all-or-nothing sort of guy about this. Work with people where they're at. Don't be that guy."

Mars is also in near-partile conjunction with a cadent cusp, so we get a second message of underplaying Mars traits.

Yeah. "Nix on the arguing your position."

BTW, looking at the chart confirms the likely sincerity of the question, because the chart is consistent with the question: Aquarius is rising, and the question is about an Aquarian topic. But, if there is anything to horary tradition (this might be stretching things a bit, and might have come from an era of poor time-keeping and chart calculation tools), when only the first degree of a sign is rising it means, "For some reason, it is too soon to ask this question."

Nope. Seems dead on to me. I have been known to make associations others don't see however. So... grain of salt.

Your Neptune was just past Midheaven. I conclude that you had Neptunian feelings (doubts? confusion? some kind of exhaustion?) while writing the question. Mars was exactly conjunct your Mercury, so you were mentally stimulated and possibly aggravated. But we also can't ignore transiting Uranus 0°04' from your Descendant... your psyche is bubbling around looking for a breakthrough, a break-OUT from your recent psychological space.

Yes. In more than one area. But confining the "answer" to the context of the question, I see it relating precisely to my frustration with the only people around here who are actually interested in astrology being so determined that they are their Tropical sign. I need practice working with people, but I keep getting sort of cut off. Probably the best answer to the question was the bit about astrology being for the astrologer, etc. I immediately changed my tack with a new practice client, and they responded it to it really well.

Just playing around to see what we can get. Consider it an experiment. Thoughts?

Surprising. Thank you.

[SteveS]

I would not dare to endeavor to engage with serious conversation with a Tropical Astrologer about Sidereal Astrology, unless the Tropical Astrologer asked valid pointed questions. My Cousin and I started learning/studying Tropical Astrology for 10 years, and then I graduated to Sidereal Astrology, my Cousin did not graduate to Sidereal Astrology. Now, we can no longer be together longer than 10 minutes discussing anything about Astrology without heated debates. I am too old for heated debates about anything.

On the other hand, I would love to teach Sidereal Astrology to others who have never been exposed to any other branch of Astrology, but I doubt very seriously this would be possible. If this was possible, in my retirement, I would teach with no charge fees. Why would I not charge any fees? A Chicago Psychic told me many moons ago, it would be very important for me to teach what I learn about Astrology--because by "Teaching" I would learn more/better.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

The thing that seems to be a barrier between most people and Sidereal astrology is the Sun sign. You tell someone who believes he's an Aries, has been all his life, likes the idea of being an Aries and feels a kinship of sorts with other people who believe they are Ariens that's he's "really" a Pisces, he's not going to believe you. Moreover, not only is he sure he's an Aries, he doesn't like Pisceans. He hasn't heard much good about Pisceans. They're sneaky and dreamy and weird and he is not and is insulted you would suggest he is.
The fact is, he is not an Aries, nor is he a Pisces. He is himself and that does not change just because somebody wants to change the label he has worn for years.

So we need to stop telling people they're "really" a different sign. Because they are not. They are the same. The definition of what that person is has not changed. How about we stop agreeing when people say, so you're telling me I'm really a Pisces, and start saying, oh, no, that's not what I'm saying. Not at all. They've stuck the wrong label on you, but you're an explorer and someone who likes to look ahead, and so on.

And when you talk to people, find out what they're moon sign is as well, because some of the traits they're holding dear as their identity as an Aries are probably traits from that.

[Jim Eshelman]

Interesting point: Don't make it about them and their personal identifications.

Gleadow used to say (for example) that Tropical Aries is Pisces misnamed. An more palatable alternative to "You're not an Aries, you're a Pisces," is, "Well, Aries isn't the right name for that part of the sky."

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

If someone comes away from the conversation thinking the definition of what they are under the Sidereal zodiac is much different from the definition of what they are under the tropical zodiac, we're doing it wrong.

But never try to tell a tropical Aquarius he's anything other than an Aquarius under any system.

[SteveS]

Good to see you feeling better JSAD.

[Jim Eshelman]

The only place I disagree with this is that I consider it a specific goal to shift the public identification. There are numerous gains to be gotten from this - the direct gain, the building a groundswell of support for the real zodiac, and the creating a context in which it is feasible for professional astrologers (in larger numbers) to be openly Siderealists.

It's not a side issue. Ultimately, it's THE goal.

But there are questions of timing, tactics, etc., and in a specific professional interchange the first duty is to the well-being of the client regardless of what they think about technicalities.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Before trying to shift the public identification of which sign they are, we first need to shift the public belief in which zodiac actually works.

[SteveS]

JSAD wrote:

Before trying to shift the public identification of which sign they are, we first need to shift the public belief in which zodiac actually works.

Exactly! When it comes to Sidereal Astrology vs Tropical Astrology, IMO, there is way too much emphasis placed on ‘which sign they are.’ Our father of Sidereal Astrology, Cyril Fagan, re-discovered the true zodiac of the ancients—the 12-30-degree equal division of the Sidereal Zodiac. This re-discovery was momentous in the modern era of astrology. Why? Because it allowed the accurate mathematical calculation for Solar & Lunar Returns, producing accurate degrees of the Angles & Solar Moons. Fagan discovered the number one forecasting astrological tool of the ancients were Solunars, and Solar & Lunar Returns (Solunars) cast in the Tropical Zodiac produced false mathematical Return Charts with the wrong degrees of the Angles and Solar Moons. Solunars cast in the Sidereal Zodiac produce accurate degrees of the Angles and Solar Moons. This is best explained in Jim’s book ‘Interpreting Solar Returns’ where he states:

A Solar Return cast in the Tropical Zodiac will be six hours in error by age 18, twelve hours in error by age 36, and an entire day off by the time a person attains the age of 72.

JSAD wrote:

… we first need to shift the public belief in which zodiac actually works.

If I was teaching Sidereal Astrology, I would ‘first’ attempt to ‘shift’ the ‘public belief’ into the Sidereal Zodiac ‘which actually works’ by producing an accurate mathematical TIMED Solunar Chart with the correct placement of angles (cornerstone for Sidereal Astrology), and the correct degree of Solar Moons (all important) in a Solar Return---not ‘trying to shift the public identification of which sign they are.’ Which sign someone belongs is very subjective, but an accurate TIMED Solunar Chart is objective with pure math.

[Jim Eshelman]

I totally disagree. Any such technicalities are (and probably should remain) beyond the typical consumer of astrology. Sun-sign identification "works" as a marketing approach for two main reasons, (1) it does, in fact, represent fundamental, core elements of a person's character and life, and (2) it's a simple, tight, need-no-technicalities element that 29 out of 30 people can know with a simple table.

Until there is large-scale buy-in to the Sidereal Sun-sign (or something new that requires equally little calculation, no expertise, and comparable character description), there will be no mass public buy-in to Sidereal astrology.

I can get an accurate return chart by deleting precession in the Tropical zodiac. One has to be an astrology geek to even care about return charts. If signs aren't the centerpiece, why I have I been wasting my entire astrological career fighting the tides, when I could have settled in as one of the official Cool Kids long ago?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

There's a huge difference between the general public whose understanding of astrology needs to be shifted and individual people for whom you'd be casting a "timed" chart. People who know their birth time without looking it up have already gone to some work to find out. That's either because they're already interested in astrology and are already set on the tropical label, or had no interest but thought what you're offering is interesting enough to go to the trouble.

If I do a chart for people, I tell them I use a different zodiac because it gives better results, and if they want to know more, they ask. I don't have a need to argue with people, and I'm not normally charismatic enough to proselytize.

[SteveS]

First Jim, I meant no offense to you and your Sun Sign Astrology work with the Sidereal Zodiac, it is a great work, not matched by any other astrologer I know. I was only voicing an opinion in response to JSAD’s comments about other possible better ‘shifts’, to build a bridge for new students learning Sidereal Astrology, other than ‘what sign they are.’

Before I would teach Sidereal Astrology to new students already versed in Tropical Astrology, they would first be introduced/taught to managing a computer and an astrological program like Solar Fire with Sidereal Astrology techniques. This takes the ‘geek’ out of the equation, a layperson (Tropical Astrologer) would be able to clearly see the mathematical differences in computing a ‘Solunar’ chart from the Sidereal Zodiac vs the Tropical Zodiac, explaining there is no ‘Precession’ adjustment necessary with the Sidereal Z vs Tropical Z. Then maybe the Tropical layperson learning Sidereal Astrology would be in a better position to see/understand the Tropical may be an erroneous zodiac.

Fagan’s AA articles were titled Solunars (Solar & Lunar Returns), not Sun Sign Astrology difference with Sidereal vs Tropical. IMO, the essence of Solunars had to do with correctly computed Solunars in order to see the correct calculated degree angles, not zodiac differences with Sun Sign Astrology. This forum is labeled Solunars in the spirit of ALL Fagan’s teachings. Again, Fagan discovered the foreknowledge of Solunars computed in the Sidereal Zodiac was the key tool used by the ancients for forecasting the future, not Solunars in the Tropical Zodiac. This is the real reason why Solunars lost favor for 2000 years with astrologers, no astrologer had the correct zodiac or 'precession' understanding to accurately cast a correct mathematical Solunar. Therefore, imo, better ways need to be advanced to help bridge new learning methods with anyone interested in learning Sidereal Astrology, if possible I wrote my response to JSAD comments in the spirit of:

Fagan’s greatest contributions involved recognition of the earth’s rotation (the angles), not its revolution (the ecliptic and Sun Sign Zodiacs). Fagan made angularity the cornerstone of an entirely new approach to astrology he alone developed.

I agree with the above quoted words pertaining to Fagan’s ‘greatest contribution’ for Sidereal Astrology was angularity, not Sun Sign astrology, which I think was somewhat lost to students of astrology when Fagan introduced the Sidereal Zodiac. It appears to me when Fagan introduced the Sidereal Zodiac into the modern era of astrology, it produced a firestorm with augmented Sun Sign Astrology between the two zodiacs. Fagan’s ‘new approach’ with angularity techniques goes much deeper than Sun Sign astrology between the two zodiacs. When Fagan introduce Sidereal Astrology, ‘the home computer was still the stuff of science fiction.’ ‘Now there’s a computer (and an astrologer) around every corner.’ If some new teaching approach is not taken with the brilliant innovation of the Personal Computer teaching the different angularity techniques with Solunars in the two different zodiacs to the layperson (astrologer), other than just the difference of Sun Sign Astrology in the two zodiacs, new teaching bridges will never be built for the new student for Sidereal Astrology, imho. But, even then, I have my serious doubts about new better ways for teaching Sidereal Astrology. As I have always stated, Sidereal Astrology is only for the faithful few, regardless how they approach learning Sidereal Astrology. You either know Sidereal Astrology or you don’t!

Jim wrote:

If signs aren't the centerpiece, why I have I been wasting my entire astrological career fighting the tides, when I could have settled in as one of the official Cool Kids long ago?

I hear you Jim . I never took Fagan’s Solunars work as ‘signs’ being the ‘centerpiece’ of his work. I took Fagan’s AA articles as being new astrological ‘techniques’ with the Sidereal Zodiac, mainly Solunars as the ‘centerpiece,’ which is the name (Solunars) of your Forum. Again Jim, I meant no offense to your Sun Sign work with the Sidereal Zodiac. Anyway, In my mind, you are an ‘official Cool Kid.’

[mikestar13]

This topic has brought up some intense feeling. This touches all our hearts more than any of us realize. We are human beings who know the truth, and we want to share it.

For my part, from the mid seventies for about twenty years I tried to bring the sidereal zodiac to anyone I met who took astrology seriously. People who will never get beyond reading newspaper horoscopes are beyond our reach unless were reach the folks who write newspaper horoscopes. But my success with the more serious students was pretty indifferent no matter what approach I tried. I did get Jim a tiny number of sales of NIA and ISR. I would love nothing better than to see a revitalization of astrology as the techniques discovered by Fagan and Bradley become the norm rather than are rare exception. But that won't happen in my lifetime and may well never. It ultimately doesn't matter.

"Well what's wrong with losing ninety percent of my audience? What's wrong with losing ALL my audience? I know what I know and I talk what I talk! And if that's wrong then that's just too bad. The airplane rides are are three dollars, cash!" --Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, 1977 .

Give yourself a treat and google it to read the quote in context, then check out some more of the gems in Illusions. Bach's better known Jonathan Livingston Seagull is well worth a read, too, or a re-read if you were alive and old enough to read in the seventies.

[FlorencedeZ.]

"Well what's wrong with losing ninety percent of my audience? What's wrong with losing ALL my audience? I know what I know and I talk what I talk! And if that's wrong then that's just too bad[/b]. The airplane rides are are three dollars, cash!" --Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, 1977 .

Give yourself a treat and google it to read the quote in context, then check out some more of the gems in Illusions. Bach's better known Jonathan Livingston Seagull is well worth a read, too, or a re-read if you were alive and old enough to read in the seventies.

Thank you Mikestar. I defenitely will do this.

This touches all our hearts more than any of us realize. We are human beings who know the truth, and we want to share it.

So true. I am grateful we have the forum to share our truths.
Regards,
Flo

[mikestar13]

I am grateful we have the forum to share our truths.

Amen, sister, amen .

[SteveS]

Mike & Flo, double thumbs-up
There is also another huge teaching factor today for the new student of Sidereal Astrology, which until a few years ago did not exist, and that is Jim’s book Sidereal Mundane Astrology (SMA), which is a great book on explaining major events with the Sidereal Zodiac pertaining to Cardinal Ingress Charts. IMO, this book is the greatest Mundane Astrology book ever written, and I have read a few Mundane Astrology books . This book was based on 3 obscure American Astrology monthly articles by Donald Bradley in 1957. If I was teaching Sidereal Astrology today, I would definitely use all of Jim’s Chart examples in SMA comparing them to Cardinal Ingress Charts in the Tropical Zodiac. IMO, Jim’s SMA book proves the Sidereal Zodiac is the true Zodiac.

[mikestar13]

...
There is also another huge teaching factor today for the new student of Sidereal Astrology, which until a few years ago did not exist, and that is Jim’s book Sidereal Mundane Astrology (SMA), which is a great book ... IMO, this book is the greatest Mundane Astrology book ever written ... If I was teaching Sidereal Astrology today, I would definitely use all of Jim’s Chart examples in SMA comparing them to Cardinal Ingress Charts in the Tropical Zodiac. IMO, Jim’s SMA book proves the Sidereal Zodiac is the true Zodiac.

Steve, your are quite right about this. It's not return charts the blow the TZ out of the sky. You can still cast a mostly valid Solar Return in the tropical zodiac provided you adjust for precession a la Rob Hand et al. I defy anyone to use that cheat--and it is a cheat--on a Capsolar. Ingresses are what sea the deal, else how would it be even possible for Fagan and Bradley to refine the Hindu astrology guesstimate of Spica at 0 Libra to 29 Virgo 6' 5'' at epoch 1950.0? With an error which I severely doubt is as much as three seconds or arc?

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes, 3" would surely be too much for it to be off. 1" or 2" I could buy. (The distance Sun moves in one minute of clock time.)

Mundane astrology has been worthwhile for its own sake, and we've learned a lot of structural astrological details (the only way to get unlimited "birth charts" with absolutely certain birth times to the second!). But yes, it's especially been helpful in confirming beyond a smidgen of doubt the zodiac issue.

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

(the only way to get unlimited "birth charts" with absolutely certain birth times to the second!).

Exactly! And, this ‘only way’ involves Cardinal Sidereal Ingress Charts with Bradley’s Synectic Vernal Point (SVP) , and presented in a statistical format comparing to Cardinal Tropical Ingress Charts pertaining to major historical events certainly proves in an angular manner (‘cornerstone’ for Sidereal Astrology) that the only Zodiac that “works” is the Sidereal Zodiac. IMO, Jim's book Sidereal Mundane Astrology (SMA) is the first and only book in the entire mundane history of this World which would statistically prove the Sidereal Zodiac is the only true Zodiac!