Skyscript Astrology Forum

Graham wrote:

Sorry about the indigestible block of text. here it is more spaced out, with some additions

.
Thanks, Graham. I had decided to copy your post and break it into sections in my mail program for a reply. But now others can more easily read your post. (My reply was posted before you edited your message.)

Therese Hamilton wrote:I do have some Kolev material I printed out on the dating of the Babylonian Astrolabe to 5,500 B.C, and also Gary Thompson's critique of that dating and Rumen's reply. A fascinting topic!

You don't happen to have a link for that, do you?

I was mostly interested what you wrote: "He proves this using the "Dodekatemoiria Rising Tables" which talk of certain dodekatemoiria rising as certain stars culminate." I've been interested in further study of the dodekatemoiria for a while now.

I believe tables or diagrams can be copied or scanned, but I'm not totally sure of that.

I am minus a scanner, unfortunately. As I said, I will do my best to summarise it, it is quite a dense book.

Bogdan wrote:

I took my ideas from many astrologers, the majority of them are sidereal who follow Fagen and Bradley's school, as well as from the ancients (mainly Valens, Rhotorius, and Firmicius).

And this is exactly the problem. Simply cobbling together ideas from various sources and mixing them into a vegetable soup does not make an astrologer. And neither does it define a zodiac. Also this approach borders on plagiarism. Listing sources at the end is not sufficient reference for different concepts taken from various sources.

Bogdan, if you truly want to become an astrologer, go back to school, get a good general education, learn about scholarship and astrological history and technique. Then one day you may enter the ranks of professional astrologers and have a better understanding of zodiacs.

I say this because I care very much about astrology as a subject, and would like to see the standards raised as to who can call themselves astrologers. Right now astrology is a grand collection of educated professionals and what some have called "hobbyists." No other academic subject would accept hobbyists into its ranks.

Medical doctors, for example, must complete long years of study and internships. The same is true for other academic subjects--psychology, the sciences, etc. Today astrology is looked upon as "entertainment," and this will continue to be so unless astrology can somehow require certain education and professional standards for those who call themselves astrologers. This is now a hot debate topic among astrologers.

Konrad, here is what I was able to find for Rumen Kolev:

I typed "ancient layer of astronomical data dated to 5,500 bc" into my browser and found the PDF location: www.babylonianastrology.com/index.php?option=com...

That link didn't work, but the PDF download link worked that was listed above the link. Original publication date was 2010.

For Rumen's reply to Gary Thompson, it looks like I transferred the notes into my word processor and re-formatted them. Rumen must have this somewhere on his web site. I wasn't able to navigate his web site for some reason, and don't have time today to figure out why.
(Rumen's reply was published in June 2011.)

Sorry I can't be more exact.

Therese Hamilton wrote:Konrad, here is what I was able to find for Rumen Kolev:

I typed "ancient layer of astronomical data dated to 5,500 bc" into my browser and found the PDF location: www.babylonianastrology.com/index.php?option=com...

That link didn't work, but the PDF download link worked that was listed above the link. Original publication date was 2010.

For Rumen's reply to Gary Thompson, it looks like I transferred the notes into my word processor and re-formatted them. Rumen must have this somewhere on his web site. I wasn't able to navigate his web site for some reason, and don't have time today to figure out why.
(Rumen's reply was published in June 2011.)

Sorry I can't be more exact.

No, it is fine, Therese. I found both myself. Thanks for looking.

You always know you're dealing with a true academic when their refutation begins with an attack on the character, so that was fun.

I was under the impression that the book I linked to earlier was Rumen's first official writings on the subject of the Astrolabe, I wonder how much more research he did since 2010.

deleted

deleted

After all this discussion in this topic, I just hope that western astrologers who accept sidereal astrology as valid and relevant, take into account those who are not born under the northern hemisphere and "reform" a system of sidereal zodiac sign interpretation that considers, when it comes to natal charts at least, those of us born in the southern hemisphere of the Earth.

I'm am so sick and tired of hearing rubbish from astrologers who use the Tropical system bathed in what the ancients observed from their position on the earth in the northern hemisphere back in their times. How on earth can this translate into understanding those of us not born in the northern hemisphere and not born back in those ancient times when the stars, and thus, constellations of the zodiac from which they are derived, where in different positions from what they are today??

If astrology is to be considered more than just "entertainment" in this day and age and apply to anyone born anywhere on this earth, A new approach is needed and perhaps now is the time? They should take note of the way modern astronomical scientific thought is devised. That is, when new "entities" or astronomical bodies are discovered or any other aspect of the observed heavens is noted, it is carefully considered and "connections" are ascertained from it. So, ultimately the scientists have to reformulate there theories and approaches.

Why can't western astrologers take this attitude? who knows! but until then and only then, will modern western astrologers start to be taken seriously. I also strongly believe that the "reality test" will begin when that is formalized and a system of corresponding this body of astrological knowledge to today's human beings and life in general.

Of course, this is just my opinion, but a browse of the internet in researching this topic shows a lot of irregularity and thus confusion amongst western astrologers out there in cyber world. How long does this have to go on for?

RodJM wrote: How long does this have to go on for?

As long as evidence in support of either zodiac remains elusive I anticipate further discussions on this subject.

Here's maybe the most known currently,or active, evidence seeker giving his lens on the state of play circa 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdL5e0byZy0

Graham wrote:

It's just that it's often interesting to consider tropical points (VP, solstice points) in a chart, and to do so you have to situate them, sidereally.

I haven't used the tropical points very often in personal work, but I do think they're important and should go into charts for research--sidereally placed, of course! I sometimes look at solstice and equinox charts, but set them within sidereal signs.

Th?r?se wrote:
At this time I assume that there is one point or star that marks the beginning of the sidereal zodiac. This would be in the general area of anti-Spica which is close to the key star of Arcturus. (I'm referring to Edgar Cayce's statements on Arcturus here.)

Graham replied:
I agree with John Addey ("Harmonics in Astrology") is one of the clear-headed and insightful astro books I've read), that a "fixed" point (e.g. star) cannot be the starting point for an equally-divided zodiac, which is by its nature a harmonic pattern - the stars are simple markers, approximate "aide-m?moires".

(Graham, you put the proper accents over my name!)

I've been a big fan of John Addey, but didn't remember his statement about stars. It's been a while since I read Addey's books. They're in my library. I've included his theories of harmonics in my article, "Signs of the Zodiac: What are they?" http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aharmsign.htm Yes, I believe that signs have to be looked at in terms of harmonics. These are also the basis for the Indian varga charts.

For siderealists, [Addey] says the most likely candidate is the galactic equator (its intersection with the ecliptic at the galactic nodes, in early Sag/Gem sidereal).

I absolutely agree with him, and after much experimenting and thinking about this, and a few other more subjective indicators, I've settled on putting the North Galactic Node at 6?40 Sg, i.e. in the very middle of the Indian nakshatra Mula ("the root")

I can't recall who they are, but one or more astrologers in India suggest the center of Mula for the key point in the sidereal zodiac. There have been articles published on that point.

(the equal, regularised harmonic nakshatra system of 27, ie 27 divisions of 13?20).

I'm not sure how this fits into what you are saying...?

The great circle in question, manifested by the Milky Way, also happens to be visible, unlike the equinox great circle of tropical, which is manifested by nothing at all in space, only in time, and the MW is in fact the most striking feature to be seen, in a clear sky. Being an aggregate of all the fixed stars in our galaxy, it is also much more stable than any given fixed star. Scientists have calculated and measured (visually and using radio signals) its location as being at 270? (0? Cap tropical) to be somewhre between May and November 1998 (a quick google search will confirm this),

This doesn't mean that I think Sagittarius is the first sign, just that the NGN is a sort of anchor. We shouldn't have to use ayanamsa, we imply that it's we who are "off-setting" rather than the tropicalists, and indeed some Indian astronomers have suggested a galactic-node based coordinate system to replace the tropical one. But we can just this data to work out an ayanamsa to enter into our programs, and I'm not the only one, I think, to use a offset of 23?20 in October 1997. it works out at an ayanmasa with about 24' less offset than Krishnamurti, 30' less than Lahiri, halfway between Lahiri and Bhasin, much more than Fagan and much less than Raman, and very close indeed to Babylon Kugler III. But all this is getting very off topic, sorry.

Actually this is all very interesting, and in a way does relate to signs of the zodiac. The problem with an initial start point to a sidereal zodiac, at least as it's used in India, is that the varga or sub-charts have to work out. It's just not the basic 12 sign zodiac, but those sub-charts and also the 27 lunar mansions. It all has to synchronize together. And that is a LOT of research! I know, for example that the Krishnamurti navamsa chart is accurate, so it would be a whole new research project to test another sidereal zero Aries point.

I'm tired this evening, so am not answering in as much detail as I'd like.

RodJM wrote:

If astrology is to be considered more than just "entertainment" in this day and age and apply to anyone born anywhere on this earth, A new approach is needed and perhaps now is the time? They should take note of the way modern astronomical scientific thought is devised. That is, when new "entities" or astronomical bodies are discovered or any other aspect of the observed heavens is noted, it is carefully considered and "connections" are ascertained from it. So, ultimately the scientists have to reformulate there theories and approaches.

Why can't western astrologers take this attitude?

The majority of western astrologers began their studies in the 1960s and 70s when (believe it or not!) hardly anyone asked questions. They accepted what they read in the books or heard in lectures. All was good and unquestioned.

who knows! but until then and only then, will modern western astrologers start to be taken seriously. I also strongly believe that the "reality test" will begin when that is formalized and a system of corresponding this body of astrological knowledge to today's human beings and life in general.

How will that happen unless astrologers join together as a unit? It's well known that it's more or less "each astrologer for himself." Debate about the value of all the various techniques goes on and on. And research? Of the many thousands of astrologers, how many care about the nitty gritty of research?

Of course, this is just my opinion, but a browse of the Internet in researching this topic shows a lot of irregularity and thus confusion amongst western astrologers out there in cyber world. How long does this have to go on for?

This will go on until men and women cannot call themselves astrologers unless they have a thorough general education (college or university) and rigorous astrological training in history and technique. Plus standardized testing.

As it is now, too many astrologers have little formal education past the required level for teenagers. (High school in the U.S.) So there is a lack of good mental training, professionalism and scholarship. There is too little over-all astrological organization or agreement even on the basics. So astrology (at heart a great cosmic science) remains....entertainment in the eyes of both academics and the masses.

deleted