margherita wrote:(you would say that Indians would not use tropical zodiac, but it is evident they found it in Hellenistic texts, Ptolemy included.)

Actually, Ptolemy excluded, as far as we can tell. The first Sanskrit texts on horoscopic astrology (derived from Greek traditions) were probably written around the same time as the Tetrabiblos.

That said, it is a general principle that the benefics (and Venus in particular) incline to beauty -- of face and body, not excluding the eyes. A sign where both benefics have authority would naturally reflect that. Nevertheless, in my experience, natives with the luminaries in or ruling the ascendant typically have more prominent eyes (not always beautiful, but noticeable).

Oh, and: please don't worry about 'intruding'. Everyone should be welcome to post here, as long as we stay reasonably within topic. I for one welcome your input.

Martin Gansten wrote: That said, it is a general principle that the benefics (and Venus in particular) incline to beauty -- of face and body, not excluding the eyes. A sign where both benefics have authority would naturally reflect that. Nevertheless, in my experience, natives with the luminaries in or ruling the ascendant typically have more prominent eyes (not always beautiful, but noticeable).

I cannot confute your personal experience, but my understanding is that Lights are not exactly like other planets, so it's true the when afflicted they give problems with eyes, but they don't give the shape of body, which just depend on the five planets. In fact for example Lilly don't consider Lights as the rest of the planets, gives a score just by season or phase.

Anyway true that Moon in the first house gives moisture and coldness, so I would imagine special beautiful eyes, but honestly not for the Sun in the first, or Leo rising.

Anyway just my idea.

margherita

I'm not sure why you say that Margherita - Lilly gives the typical corporature significations of the Sun on p.70 of CA and the Moon on p.81. These are only taken from older works; for example very similar to those we find in the text of Alcabitius. Bonatti, in his 3rd book, references Dorotheus and Umar for saying that the Sun rules the right eye and the left one of women. But he also says this which sounds very similar to the point you are making: "Dorotheus said the figure of the Sun and the Moon is like the figure of the planets who are with them, and of him who is more worthy in their places".

margherita wrote:I cannot confute your personal experience, but my understanding is that Lights are not exactly like other planets, so it's true the when afflicted they give problems with eyes, but they don't give the shape of body, which just depend on the five planets.

I know that this is often said, but it is not universally agreed. The Indians certainly treat the luminaries like any other planets in this respect (at least I can't recall any exceptions), and as I said my experience corroborates their opinion. (It is, in fact, one of the areas of astrology of which I am most confident, as I use it all the time with excellent results.) To pick just one quick reference, Var?hamihira says (B?hajj?taka 2.8, my translation):

The Sun has honey-yellow eyes and a square body, a constitution [dominated by] bile (pitta) and little hair. The Moon has a body [both] slender and rounded, with much wind (v?ta) and phlegm (kapha), is wise and soft-spoken, with fine eyes.

There are other areas, too, where we have conflicting traditions regarding the luminaries. Some say they can't be Rulers of the Year, others that they can (see Ben Dykes's recent translations, particularly, if memory serves, The Book of Aristotle). There is even a version of the terms where the luminaries share rulership with the five planets, though I can't say how useful it is. (I do think they can be Rulers of the Year, though.)

It would be interesting to know if others are aware of any non-Indian sources explicitly stating that the luminaries can decide the shape of the body. It's a topic worthy of research.

Deb wrote:I'm not sure why you say that Margherita - Lilly gives the typical corporature significations of the Sun on p.70 of CA and the Moon on p.81. These are only taken from older works; for example very similar to those we find in the text of Alcabitius.

Aha! Thanks, Deb -- our posts crossed.

margherita wrote:Anyway true that Moon in the first house gives moisture and coldness, so I would imagine special beautiful eyes, but honestly not for the Sun in the first, or Leo rising.

On a personal note: my second son has sidereal Leo rising with no planets in it. For the first few years of his life, almost everyone seeing him for the first time commented on the size and beauty of his eyes. At the age of 14, the rest of his face has caught up with them, but they are still noticeable.

Paul wrote:

Nixx wrote: Bad typo on my part should have written Earth not Air. Water remains Rational. What led you to think it was perceived by Psychological Astrologers as Irrational?

Yes, that's true that Jung does refer to water as part of the rationale types, but psychological astrologers refer to Water as irrational and refer to Air as rational. Obviously the typo meant you didn't mean air. But they still refer to water as irrational. When Jung refers to rational and irrational he does not mean it in the colloquial sense. Perhaps you didn't either, and your typo is what made that not obvious

I don't think anyone can doubt Liz Greene's credentials as a psychological astrologer so I'll use her as an example, but in truth the same idea is found by several other authors.
Astrology for Lovers, Liz Greene

The element of water...is the most 'primitive' in that it is furthest from the rational realm that we are pleased to call human thought.
...
The water signs move like the realm of nature: with instinct, at home with that which is nonrational, unexplainable, sometimes magical. They are all motivated by feeling - and feeling, as everyone except a few fanatical material scientists will admit, is not something that you can measure by statistics, define by hypothesis, contain with rationally defined laws.

Clearly Greene is also using it in the colloquial sense of the word. This book is in fact littered with examples of water being referred to as irrational.

I can see where your thinking came from now. I doubt Jung referred to Water as one of the rational types as I don?t recall any explicit or even implicit astrological underpinnings to his typology.

My hunch is Greene might refer you to Jung's ideas on the ''Introverted Rational Type'' and suggest Water is similar to his ''Introverted Feeling Type''. The former type functions with this ?reasoning judgement? mentality, regardless of subjective or objective orientations to the 'object'. The Water element , for her, describes how life is experienced on this deeper more non-verbal what is the value of something level so perhaps these watery processes appear as more irrational than they actually are. Feelings tend to be quite rational processes in other words and have useful or even logical evolutionary benefits.

I recall Dione in 'Jungian Birth charts' seeing Water as irrational. Perhaps due to Jung's ideas on superior and inferior functions, namely how can rationality be both inferior and superior synonymously and does this jar with Jung?s polarity matrix. This psyche model is seen by Psychological Astrologers as a similar to , if not based on, the Horoscopic with its axial semantic geometric structures.

To probe more into these potential anomalies I would need her books to hand, and others. Astrology for Lovers I recall being a 'simpler' text designed to get the layman interested, so using a term like rational in a less colloquail way may have been a conscious choice on her part ? Also unless a Sidereal Astrologer has some knowledge and interest here it probably ought to be on another thread.

Martin wrote:

On a personal note: my second son has sidereal Leo rising with no planets in it. For the first few years of his life, almost everyone seeing him for the first time commented on the size and beauty of his eyes. At the age of 14, the rest of his face has caught up with them, but they are still noticeable.

Any planets aspecting the ascendant, Martin? Also I've seen planets on the navamsa ascendant show up in the appearance. They also seem to show up in the personality.

On eyes:

Brihat Parasara Hora:

12. Eyes. If Dhan Lord(2nd lord) is endowed with strength, the native will possess beautiful eyes. Should the said Graha(planet) be in Ari(6th), Randhr(8th), or Vyaya Bhava(12th), there will be disease, or deformity of eyes.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Taylor%2C_Elizabeth(Tropical chart)

Sidereal Scorpio rising, Jupiter second lord exalted in Cancer.Venus is exalted in pisces
Sun is in sidereal aquarius but this is not considered a detriment in Jyotisha.

PD

Deb wrote:I'm not sure why you say that Margherita - Lilly gives the typical corporature significations of the Sun on p.70 of CA and the Moon on p.81. These are only taken from older works; for example very similar to those we find in the text of Alcabitius. Bonatti, in his 3rd book, references Dorotheus and Umar for saying that the Sun rules the right eye and the left one of women. But he also says this which sounds very similar to the point you are making: "Dorotheus said the figure of the Sun and the Moon is like the figure of the planets who are with them, and of him who is more worthy in their places".

I was specifically talking about the assessment of temperament, because temperament is not just how a native reacts, but it's about the shape of body. Medieval doctors recognized temperament from this.

It's true that eyes are under Lights, but honestly I would associate them more with diseases of the eyes ( we have tons of quotes) rather than the shape of body.

Bright eyes can be find especially with Pisces, with Venus, and with cold and moist temperament.

In effect some authors describe lunar and solar complexions, but they are mostly depicting phlegmatic and choleric temperament. I generally use as quick manual Della Porta and he says many times that when he talks about the qualities of the planets (included the Lights) he is talking about their primary qualities, ie the four temperaments.

But in effect as Martin says there are different methods and they should not in agreement.
In every case there are tons of texts with Pisces rising where bright eyes are mentioned, so at least we know it is not modern.

margherita

Therese Hamilton wrote:Any planets aspecting the ascendant, Martin?

The Sun itself, by a wide trine.

so hows does Astrology fit with various ethnic/racial groups including even multiethnic/racial types like myself?