Last of the four horsemen into place

[Barbara Ybarra]

Hello everyone:

I'm not dooms-daying here.  Mostly I am wondering what others think about this:  There is usually a decision made by astrologers early on in their studies to go with either sidereal astrology or tropical astrology.  A very few will study both, one of them being Jim Williams who posts here.  I am wondering if it is helpful to think of them as complementing one another somehow.

The "fixed stars", or as I like to call them, the "important stars" are used by tropical astrologers to add a bit of zest to a chart or reading, and in that way I think they steal a little thunder from the siderealists.   I do it myself, but not very often now. Here is why: I once told a woman in a reading about a star that was connected to her natal Mars (mostly because her current love had a strong connection as well) and she pressed me for a more intuitive reading on it until I had worked myself into a whole story about her previous time on that star with her boyfriend.  I told her that I was making up the whole thing as a metaphor for her understanding but she wouldn't believe me, and the next thing you know other people were coming to me wanting to know what star they had lived on!  So I am more careful now with mentioning individual stars for individual people.

 Regulus has now "moved into" our tropical 0 Virgo (just as tr Neptune opposes it).  It is the last of the four "watchers" moving into tropical mutable signs.  Two thousand years ago or so, which I personally believe is pretty much the time span of our history as we know it to be, those stars entered the fixed signs at a time in when the Spring equinox was at 0 Aries.  Y'all know this already.  I think it is easy to get confused, especially when explaining it to someone who doesn't know about it.

I am wondering how to use the information.  Regulus is a star in the constellation Leo.  It is the heart of the lion.  Now, in a sense, Leo has itself has moved into Virgo.  We can think perhaps of the constellation as a person, or a Lion.  Does the Lion, when he moves into Virgo, act differently, or does he have a Virgo mission to perform?  Or am I just being a little bit insane about this?

No need to answer my question directly (particularly the insane part), but any ramblings on the four stars moving into mutable position would be great to hear….or any ideas about the timing of Regulus being opposed by Neptune.  Or anything at all.

Barbara Ybarra

[Rob]

Regulate the heart.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Interesting thought, Barbara

My only comment (at the moment) would be that Leo hasn't moved into Virgo.  The Sidereal is the more "fixed" of observational systems, so technically, (tropical) Virgo has backslid into (sidereal) Leo.       [Maybe it's a personal bias... I'd rather see the virgin eaten by the lion, than see the proud lion get all nit-picky!    ]

I don't think you're insane, however I do think that it would be hard to conceptualize anything relating to this that didn't seem forced somehow.  Still, I am curious to hear others' comments on this.

Peace

James

[Barbara Ybarra]

thank you Rob.  I actually relish your comment. 

and thank you OD for your comments.  I love your ideas…poor virgin.  Feet first, too.  Might make an interesting painting.

Barbara Ybarra

[SGFoxe]

think the tarot card of the maiden closing the lion's mouth -- i was thinking of the 4 horsemen myself, but in a planetary context relative to the bad ass formations of inauguration day next year

[rollanrm]

It's obviously a big if, but if one is going to read this sign change and current events apocalyptically as your heading seems to do, then to me it's rather clear how to proceed with the symbolism. The city of Jerusalem is a Virgo city (or anyway it is celebrated under Virgo) and many of us hold that Jesus was born under Virgo. The Millenium is understood to be ruled from Jerusalem under the returned Christ as its king. The Second Advent is like a sudden surprise, a flash of lightning, which is the glyph of Aquarius and Aquarius is the sign of Utopias which the Millenium is understood to be. One reason to read the symbolism this way is because if - again a big one - Jeane Dixon rightly saw the Antichrist born in 1962, then he was born as an Aquarian with his Uranus conjunct Regulus giving potential of fame and world rule but not the rule of the real future which exists with Regulus now beyond this last gasp Leo factor. If you use the 2.37 PM UT 0 Scorpio rising chart for Israel, which I believe to be the most accurate, then 0 Taurus on the descendant trines the new Regulus in Virgo. The descendant is conjunct asteroid Jerusalem at 3 degrees. Does this make sense to what you are thinking?

[Barbara Ybarra]

Rollanrm:
Yes, it does make sense, and I especially appreciate your sentence on the antichrist who was born under Regulus in the constellation of Leo now in its "last gasp" (brilliant phrasing there).  I can't quite get a grip on why I personally have such a hard time letting go of the actual stars.  There is tropical astrology and there is sidereal, and then there is me, who seems to apply great significance to the constellations being aligned "correctly" just before the time of Christ.  Perhaps I was an astrologer back then and it is very stuck in my head still.

Barbara Ybarra