delete

Good evening,

Of course one finds in equal lunar mansions, 27 or 28, a similar issue as with zodiacal signs. The stars the mansions are named after are not equally spaced from each other in terms of ecliptical longitude. To keep things simple let us exclude considerations of latitude, at least for the time being.

One can find a list of unequal Arabic lunar mansions for example in Christopher Warnock's "Mansions of the Moon". Several of Maria Thun's (deceased 2012) books have been translated into English and are in print. Dr. med. Editha Torsson has published one book in German that is in print.

Unequal signs and mansions do not fit into a harmonic concept of astrology. However, they DO fit with resonance and with Dr. Percy Seymour's theories. Humans are generally deeply attached to order and symmetry and find it uncomfortable, even threatening to consider chaos and asymmetry on a equal footing.

The shift of probably prehistoric astrologers from unequal to equal signs and mansions is in my humble opinion related to the introduction of agriculture and domestication of animals into human society during the late stone age. Celestial phenomena had to be adapted to time-keeping in ever smaller units, requiring equal divisions. Concurrently, constellations related to hunting and gathering were pushed away from the ecliptic, their Goddesses and Gods removed from rulership of the zodiacal constellations. Some of the older attributions can be found in Manilius.

The result was an explosive proliferation of our species, estimated from about 5 mio. to 300 mio. In my view these developments mirrored the descent of the Ages, the degeneration of mankind who became unable and unwilling to dwell with stable population in Gaia's natural environment, the forest. Even today, few can imagine hunters and gatherers using cereals (-> Ceres) as their main food.

Many groups of 'erudites' including Western exponents of Indian astrology revel in their jargons that erect exclusive circles and barriers to communication. Occasionally there are foreign words for which there is no equivalent, e. g. use of the German word 'Gestalt' in the English language. However, such occasions are rare. It is thus high time that someone write a textbook of "Indian Astrology in Plain English", using the rich Western astrological vocabulary available and applied since ancient Greek, Roman and mediaeval Arab times.

Best regards,

lihin

This discussion is getting seriously off-topic. I have my share of blame in this, but I suggest that further discussion of extraneous topics be continued in separate threads (and, where matters relating strictly to Indian astrology are concerned, perhaps in another forum altogether).

Good morning,

Most current astrology software offers a choice of 20 or more precession factors for so-called 'sidereal' equal sign zodiacs. Even more can be found on the internet proposed by astrologers. Which, if any, are correct and why? For each proposed arc there is a corresponding date of entry into the highly renowned 'Age of Aquarius'.

Even amongst practitioners of Western 'sidereal' equal sign astrology the Fagan-Bradley arc of precession is not unanimously used.

Very few astrology software programmes offer to date the possibility to define zodiacs with unequal signs, one of them being Aur?as, Paris. Astrologers who practise using unequal, real sidereal constellations instead of signs most often apply the constellation boundaries along the ecliptic defined by the IAU in the 1930s. However, they (no exception known to date) continue Scorpius instead of introducing Ophiuchus in that segment of the ecliptic where the latter constellation has less ecliptical latitude than the former.

One might mention that the Starlight software's extensive fixed star components and delineations (developed chiefly by Ms. Bernadette Brady) are based on and refer to the real astronomic constellations.

Best regards,

lihin

Thanks for the useful information on software. As for 'real sidereal' versus 'so-called sidereal', I think one should bear in mind that even the unequal constellations were invented/discovered by humans -- only the individual stars have actual physical existence. 'Sidereal', when used of the zodiac, means fixed in relation to the constellations from which the signs get their names, not identical with them; it is a symbolic division of the sky (in this case, of the ecliptic) just like the constellations themselves, and no more or less real.

Re: Fagan and turning on a dime with dasa changes.

I would be very delighted to see the process of this dasa analysis.
It has not happened to me and not in the charts of my family members, at least, based on the "Laghu Parashari" concept of dasa lord analysis.

King George VI of England wouldn't be a bad idea.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Geo ... of_England


It would be better off in the Jyotish section.

PD

Good afternoon,

The human mind assigns and derives 'meaning' to and from phenomena and feels extremely uncomfortable with 'meaninglessness'. The Hamburg School and certain practitioners of Harmonics Schools have done away with constellations and signs altogether and use numbered dials, usually counting from 0 Aries tropical as a convention.

The 'fixed' stars are, as we know, much less fixed than we might wish them to be but certainly much more 'fixed' than the wandering stars (planets). Within a human life span, as one can read in ephemerides, many fixed stars shift their relative positions by seconds of right ascension and declination. The efforts of the human mind to peg itself to anything, e. g. a fiducial star, are, alas, doomed to failure. Change is the true constant.

Choosing an astrological school and a matching zodiac is not so easy. If modern astrologers invest time, money and effort into research (a big 'if'), with time they might develop breadth and depth comparable to e. g. Mediaeval Hermetic or Indian astrologies. Meanwhile we are faced with a theology-serving self-restriction (without 'free will' and the immortality of individual souls [plural!] there is nothing one could pin post-mortem guilt or merit to) of much modern astrology to human psychology. Before modern astrology casts off its self-imposed chains and can offer a rather complete set of tools, we may all be dead.

What are objective criteria, within the framework of an equal sign system, to select an arc of precession (tropical zodiacs select 0) as best? What statistical studies, if any, have investigated this to perhaps demonstrate the validity of a particular precession arc? Those who will object that astrology is not subject to statistical investigation are kindly asked to explain their incoherence in intensively using some branches of mathematics, e. g. geometry and spheric trigonometry, whilst categorically excluding some others.

Best regards,

lihin