The Zodiac in the Southern Hemisphere

Astrologers in the southern hemisphere (SH) look northwards to view the Sun as it creates the zodiac, while astrologers in the northern hemisphere (NH) look southwards to view the same zodiac.

Same zodiac

Although visitors from the NH would see the background constellations in the SH as turned upside down, the zodiac signs are the same. It is the same celestial space. There is no change. The zodiac is consistent in its power and meaning across the globe. There is no reversal of signs. The star patterns associated with Aries form the backdrop to the Sun on April 1st whether viewed from the SH or NH, assuming we could see through the Sun‘s glare.

Aries north and south

On April 1st the Sun as viewed from the SH does not pass across that part of the sky associated with Libra. Just Aries. The visuals clearly tell us that that the sign through which the Sun passes is Aries, and does not support the notion that people born on April 1st should have a Libran Sun-sign. There can be no mistake.

Someone born on April 1st is an Aries irrespective of which hemisphere their birthplace is located, and they exhibit the qualities that we normally associate with Aries, assuming these are not obscured by other indicators.

Underlying cosmology

While people may speculate on when and how the tropical zodiac was first recognised, it is important to understand the cosmology that underpins astrology. This cosmology describes the structure of our universe including the relationship between the planets and zodiac signs. It also clarifies the distinction between the constellations and the zodiac signs.

Distinction between the divine and the material

This ancient cosmological model shows a clear distinction between the perfection associated with the divine world and the imperfection of the manifest material world. The zodiac is associated with the upper spheres of the divine world of perfection, and the planets and constellations exist only in the physical world. The constellations are subject to deterioration and are gradually moving out of alignment due to a process called the precession of the equinoxes. The zodiac signs, which exist within the realm of divine perfection, are subject to no such corruption. They contain the sum-total of all possibilities for manifestation in our material world, which are activated by the passage of the lights and the planets.

No switching signs

Without a knowledge of the cosmology that underpins astrology the zodiac signs can lose their intrinsic meaning and become de-valued. Switching the signs for those born in the SH takes us away from astrology. How much better is it to first learn the basics of astrology before trying the improvise and invent.

2 replies
  1. Jen
    Jen says:

    Hello, I just want to say that I disagree with the dogmatic “no sign switching” approach. The northern hemisphere language of astrology doesn’t provide a natal chart that reflects my cosmic blueprint in any way, shape or form – until the signs are inverted on the ecliptic. Southern hemisphere astrologers may debate this forever. The basics of astrology should be learnt and understood as you say, and then applied as per the origins of the language of astrology, which if you go back far enough, was inherently based on the symbolism of the seasons and their energy, the lightness / darkness, etc. An article by Robin Armstrong articulates my own understanding of tropical astrology precisely: https://rasa.ws/rasa-library-menu-page/rasa-library-articles-sh-horoscope/ I also don’t believe, as a professional in any field that it’s appropriate to force people to interpret a language that has been adapted and reinvented numerous times (pop-culture horoscopes anyone?) and that simply doesn’t apply to a culture, no matter how much you say it should. One voice does not speak for the universe. One day I hope to wake up and find a wealth of information online that supports the southern hemisphere inversion – but that would mean current astrologers would need to recognise and accept a viewpoint that is ‘other’ right now (something I’m quite familiar with). This may yet take some time. I for one, do understand the cosmology, my own birth chart, and the reality that inverting the signs on the ecliptic reflects my chart. I was born in the first cardinal sign of Summer in Australia and I’m a Cancer not a Capricorn, no matter how much you’d like to tell me otherwise.

    Reply
    • Peter Burns
      Peter Burns says:

      Yes Jen you see yourself as a Cancer not a Capricorn. Why that would be I cannot say without seeing your chart. I can only say that the vast majority of clients that I have seen have confirmed their experience of their horoscope as setup in the conventional manner. Librans, for example, have not experienced life as an Aries. Obviously other chart factors can mask the solar influence, including the Ascendant, the Sun’s dispositor, house placement etc..

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *