Skyscript Astrology Forum

Perhaps interesting to know is that the Babylonians also considered a ring around the Moon or a lunar halo of significance in combination with a conjunction with a planet or star. This is a meteorological effect. Picture: http://www.astropix.com/HTML/SHOW_DIG/009.HTM

Here some omens on rings around the Moon
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES

When visible, the ring is always of a radius of 22?, so this could be seen as some limit of influence.

I found a couple of natal chart examples for you Andrew:

David Cassidy: Moon 29 38 Aqua
Jupiter 29 29 Aqua

Both 9th house with Cancer Rising and Pisces MC.



Aldo Moro Italian PM: Moon 14 01 Leo
Venus 14 16 Leo


The question to ask then would be whether there would be a big difference between having the planet non-cazimi and cazimi.

To me this is a tricky example because the nature of Jupiter-Venus is fortunate on Moon in any case. It might be useful to judge whether Jupiter or Venus?s nature and houses are helped greatly by Moon, who like Sun is a luminary and emits both light and heat.


I would say there is a case to be made. But that perhaps looking at cazimi malefics might be a good idea since Jupiter and Venus would be accidentally dignifying Moon in any harmonious aspect.

We have a situation in the Sports Section where Everton's 4-2 victory over ManU in the FA Cup Semi-finals seems to be explained by Jupiter, Lord of the 7th house, being witin the Heart of the Moon.

The Moon was 3' of arc past the exact conjunction with Jupiter at the time the match started, but the diameter of the Moon is about 28' in arc - so Jupiter was still in 'Lunar Cazimi'.

Other factors suggested a possible draw, but then when it came to the kick-out Everton got it! And much to everyone's suprize!

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 8155#38155

Hi, Andrew

why not to use the term "lunar occultation"? Or, if you don?t like the term, or think it doesn?t correct say what you want to express, why don?t you invent a completely new term?

you know how internet is... eventually we will see people talking about "lunar cazimi" and then they will say that yes it is a traditional concept.

I think every astrologer has the right to invent the concepts they seem apropriate, but I don?t think this right extend to modify concepts that are very old. If the ancients wanted to use the word "cazimi" for the moon, we sure would have find some reference to it. As there is none, I would argue that the term "lunar cazimi" is misleading, and will probably create in the future confusions like people who think that a planet void of course is "peregrine".

Best regards
Y

why not to use the term "lunar occultation"? Or, if you don?t like the term, or think it doesn?t correct say what you want to express, why don?t you invent a completely new term?

You are onto something there, Yuzuru, but the Moon did not occlude Jupiter yesterday as she past 1,4 degrees north of the planet. However, I believe in projecting the planets position onto the ecliptic and judging them from that. Occultations are special, but in general practice I make no difference.

I haven't come up with any suggestion for a new phrase for a 'lunar cazimi' at present, but gathering some observations on this potential phenomena seems to be a good starting point. If it does come to the point of inventing a new phrase I do think that the idea of a planet being placed in 'The Heart of the Moon' is covering. The Moon may have a diametre of between 29'33" and 33'30" of arc. This means the the orb to be alotted a planet shall vary beween 15-17' of arc for the planet to be judged as under this condition.

Andrew Bevan wrote:

why not to use the term "lunar occultation"? Or, if you don?t like the term, or think it doesn?t correct say what you want to express, why don?t you invent a completely new term?

You are onto something there, Yuzuru, but the Moon did not occlude Jupiter yesterday as she past 1,4 degrees north of the planet. However, I believe in projecting the planets position onto the ecliptic and judging them from that. Occultations are special, but in general practice I make no difference.

I haven't come up with any suggestion for a new phrase for a 'lunar cazimi' at present, but gathering some observations on this potential phenomena seems to be a good starting point. If it does come to the point of inventing a new phrase I do think that the idea of a planet being placed in 'The Heart of the Moon' is covering. The Moon may have a diametre of between 29'33" and 33'30" of arc. This means the the orb to be alotted a planet shall vary beween 15-17' of arc for the planet to be judged as under this condition.

What about a "quasi lunar occultation"? Covering the fact that the planet would have been occulted provided the planet had the same latitude as the Moon.

Eddy wrote:What about a "quasi lunar occultation"?

Or simply 'quazimi'?