Books on Synastry

[Freya]

Feb 28, 2013
I wanted to learn more about the subject...does anyone know any reliable books on synastry?

Thanks

[Freya]

Besides Jim's and Stanton's TNIA, I'm not aware if there is any other Western Sidereal book which deals with synastry.

I've learned a lot from Ronald Davison's "Synastry", although he is a tropicalist - if you can see past that in his writing, there are some very accurate observations (particularly regarding aspects between two charts).

[Freya]

Thank you Danica, I will get the book Is stanton's book called TNIA? I could not find it online

[Freya]

Thank you Danica, I will get the book Is stanton's book called TNIA? I could not find it online

She meant The New Instant Astrologer (T.N.I.A.) by Eshelman & Stanton

All the interpretive material from the synastry chapter (much of it updated) is in the synastry interpretation section of this site.

[Freya]

Did Fagan or Bradely publish anything on synastry?

[Freya]

Did Fagan or Bradely publish anything on synastry?

There are bits and pieces scattered through Fagan's "Solunars" series (which ran in American Astrology from 1953 to 1972). I remember one stretch (maybe in the mid or late '60s) in which he went through aspect by aspect. (A lot of my early thoughts on the subject were based on those articles.)

[Freya]

Thank you Jim, if that's the case I won't waste my time looking for them as I understand that they are hard to find. Have you compared synastry charts to the 9th harmonics/vedic system? If you have, what are your thoughts on their accuracy?

[Freya]

Thank you Jim, if that's the case I won't waste my time looking for them as I understand that they are hard to find. Have you compared synastry charts to the 9th harmonics/vedic system? If you have, what are your thoughts on their accuracy?

I've used the Navamsa at different periods - looked at it intensely a couple of times, put it away, etc.

My general conclusion is that yes, synmastric contacts in the Navamsa seem quite valid; however, the rasis (normal, of 1st harmonic, natal horoscope) is so completely sufficient in this matter, that I'm not uncovering anything new. Under the principle that "less is usually more" in astrology, the added data is an increase in "noise" without adding anything.

So, of course, I end up viewing it primarily in my own relationships (Doesn't everybody? <vbg>) My advice is to consult it only in cases where you need a much deeper look than usual, or where there is some significant unresolved mystery about the relationship that the charts seem not to address.

And, of course, there are times when it will look like the Navamsa contains totally wrong information. These "seeming hits" happen in astrology, sometimes because there are truths we don't know (but the chart does), sometimes because we don't know how to weigh matters correctly, and perhaps sometimes because people are just too stubborn to act out a particular script. For example, my very best friend (in a friendship enduring over a decade) has Saturn square my Mars in the Navamsa. I know what a Mars-Saturn interchange feels like, and there has probably not been an hour that I've ever felt that with this particular person. Maybe it speaks to our ability to work together, or to things we've endured, etc.; but it would be misleading to interpret it in any usual fashion. This means the aspect would derail a right a priori understanding of the relationship. (One example of where more data doesn't mean anything more than a bigger haystack to sort through looking for the needle.)

[Freya]

Thank you Jim, that makes a lot of sense to me and it confirms what I have observed so far about the navamsa. Have you looked at the accuracy of the navamsa in providing another "layer" of information about the natal chart? Do you think it is reliable?

[Freya]

Thank you Jim, that makes a lot of sense to me and it confirms what I have observed so far about the navamsa. Have you looked at the accuracy of the navamsa in providing another "layer" of information about the natal chart? Do you think it is reliable?

I think "different layer" thinking is all wrong. The chart shows the person, period.

[Freya]

which chart are your referring to? The navamsa?

I mean anything at all. For example, the theory that the Tropical zodiac shows one side of a person, and the Sidereal a different side. Or that the Navamsa shows a different piece of a person than the rasi. Etc.

That just leaves all sorts of room to make stuff up!

[Freya]

i think I gt what you are saying. regarding the Navamsa, do you see it as having any validity at all as a "second natal", as some astrologers use it?

I think new aspects and the new Moon sign add additional information. I'm not sure that one requires it.

[Freya]

As Jansky's book was mentioned today, does anyone know if Jansky's book on synastry is worth reading?

Thanks