Moon Ingress

[Guest guest]

Dear Mary and Trish:

 

Yes, it may be interesting to reflect about the period of TIME

that the Moon does not make any aspects with other planets until its ingress

into a new sign, although the void Moon is significant in Western Astrology.

 

Again, my first concern was the accuracy of the TIME of Moon's ingress into a

new sign and how different that is from the Western calculations and how this

TIME is arrived at (or how I could calculate it without having vedic software),

and no one has answered this.

 

But the discussion still cleared some of the confusion, I agree, Mary. You did

make one point I'm recalling from memory that the TIME for the planetary

aspects is the same in western/jyotish because of the degree: could you

clarify this? Especially since the TIME of the eclipses is the same in both

Western/Jyotish, is this related, and how is it different from the TIME of the

Moon's ingress into a sign?

 

Mary, you may be interested in the Jyotish ephemeris I use ( I also use

Maynards for Western calculations):

 

A "10 Year" emphemeris 1-1-1999 to 1-1-2009, calculated using Lahiri's

anyamsha on Goravani Jyotish 2.2.2 software.with "all values calculated for

12:00 noon at Boulder, Colorado, USA by Vedic Astrologer

Michael Mahesh Taft from Los Angeles, I think. His web site:

http://www.jyotish.net/10-year.htm (This is a free download from a Zip to an

Excel file).

 

If anyone on the list would want to calculate the TIME of the Moon's entry into

a sign using their software (for the decade!) and send it to those who may be

interested on the list, I'd be interested in receiving it.

 

Satyam Shivam Sundaram

 

Janna

 

-- Please visit my web site: http://seven_directions.tripod.com/

 

 

gjlist, Mary Quinn <mary1quinn> wrote:

> Dear Trish,

>

> Thanks for joining the party!

>

> Janna and I also quickly came to the conclusion that

> there is no such thing as VOC Moon in Jyotish, but

> it's mightly pleasant to have it confirmed. Thanks.

>

> Still, since Janna had concerns about the accuracy of

> her data and the confusion caused by mixing the two

> different zodiacs, it seemed very worth discussing

> even though not Vedic. Carrying confusion around on

> any topic is very annoying and a great waste of time.

>

> Thanks again.

>

>

>

> New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Janna,

 

Okay, let's see if I can answer the right question

this time.

 

Let's take as an example aspect (since I can't

remember what aspects the Moon casts Vedically):

 

Moon conjunct Mars at 4 S.Cancer or 27 T.Cancer at

noon (no time zone since this is an example) on a

hypothetical day.

 

The Moon conjuncts Mars because there are ZERO degrees

longitudinally between the Moon and Mars. It does not

matter if they are both at 4 degrees S.Cancer or 27

degrees T.Cancer. It wouldn't matter what degree of

ANY zodiac they are at. They are conjunct because of

the DISTANCE between them, in this case zero degrees;

in a trine 120 degrees, etc. Therefore the Moon

conjuncts Mars at NOON let's say (under either zodiac)

because the distance is zero under either zodiac. You

CANNOT have the Moon exactly conjunct Mars sidereally

but somehow still 5 degrees apart tropically. It's

impossible. Sure, sidereally two planets can be

considered conjunct by sign only, but if it's listed

in the ephemeris, we're talking about the time the

aspect goes exact. And a conjunction goes exact at

zero degrees of distance between the planets in

question. The two zodiacs share the same planets, they

just define the degree of longitudinal location

differently. Therefore, ANY aspect between planets

(and eclipses or occultations are by definition an

aspect between planets or lights) happens at the same

TIME in either zodiac. It is impossible for them to

happen at different TIMEs.

 

So, to reiterate: Anything that is a matter of

DISTANCE BETWEEN PLANETS OR LIGHTS (aspects including

eclipses) will happen at the same TIME sidereally and

tropically.

 

However an INGRESS is not a distance between planets.

An ingress is when a particular planet (in this case

Moon) ENTERS A SIGN. Since this by definition has only

to do with SIGNs, then you will have a different TIME

for the S.ingress versus the T.ingress since the two

signs are 23-odd degrees apart.

 

I don't calculate the Moon's T.ingresses. I just look

at the T.calendar. If I didn't have a calendar, I'd

find it in my T.ephemeris. So I can't help you on

calculating the times.

 

Thank you by the way for the link to your S.ephemeris.

I haven't looked at it yet, but doesn't it list the

Moon's S.ingresses? Isn't it typical for an ephemeris

to do so? If you don't get an answer from someone

else, you might want to try writing to this Michael

Mahesh Taft you mention and see if he listed the

Moon's S.Ingresses elsewhere.

 

Then again, for all I know, the Moon's ingresses are

unimportant Vedically and that may be why it isn't

commonly listed in a sidereal ephemeris. Then you

might just be left with looking up the correct

ayanamsha (do I have that right?) and calculating the

time the Moon needs to travel that and adding those 46

odd hours to the T.Ingress time since the Moon would

enter S.Leo 23 odd degrees later than it enters T.Leo.

 

And please let me know if I still haven't addressed

the right question. I'll try again.

 

;-)

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mary:

 

Yes, your explanation clarified the difference for me very well. The ephemeris

I have only shows the date and the degree/sign that each planet/light is in,

and Michael's explanation that the "the signs aren't physical realities, but

measurement conventions" adds to your reasoning. (His reply below).

 

One of the reasons I'm interested in this is that I follow each of the 8 lunar

cycles, which shows that today, for example, is the sidereal Cancer /tropical

Leo Disseminating Moon at 2:20 PM PST. My "logic" is that if a planet enters

a sign EARLIER tropically than sidereally DATEWISE (e.g. T Mars enters

Aries Dec 16 but enters S Aries January 24 because of the difference in

DEGREE based on the ayanamsha, that there should be some way to

correlate the time based on the difference in degree between s/t. (How would

the ancients have done it without software?)

 

But I'm past functioning on any quasi-logical level at this point. Thank you for

taking the time to clarify distance/longitude. This helps. Here's Michael's

reply:

 

"Because the signs aren't physical realities, but measurement conventions

based on the Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs, the ingression times into

new signs are completely different." He adds, "The moon's ingress into a new

sign is very important in Vedic astrology, but it isn't normally calculated

using

a time-shift formula from a Western ephemeris. I'm sure there's a way to do the

calculation you're describing, but I don't know what that would be. If it's

exact

times you're looking for, then the software is the way to go."

 

Janna

 

http://seven_directions.tripod.com/

gjlist, Mary Quinn <mary1quinn> wrote:

> Dear Janna,

>

> Okay, let's see if I can answer the right question

> this time.

>

> Let's take as an example aspect (since I can't

> remember what aspects the Moon casts Vedically):

>

> Moon conjunct Mars at 4 S.Cancer or 27 T.Cancer at

> noon (no time zone since this is an example) on a

> hypothetical day.

>

> The Moon conjuncts Mars because there are ZERO degrees

> longitudinally between the Moon and Mars. It does not

> matter if they are both at 4 degrees S.Cancer or 27

> degrees T.Cancer. It wouldn't matter what degree of

> ANY zodiac they are at. They are conjunct because of

> the DISTANCE between them, in this case zero degrees;

> in a trine 120 degrees, etc. Therefore the Moon

> conjuncts Mars at NOON let's say (under either zodiac)

> because the distance is zero under either zodiac. You

> CANNOT have the Moon exactly conjunct Mars sidereally

> but somehow still 5 degrees apart tropically. It's

> impossible. Sure, sidereally two planets can be

> considered conjunct by sign only, but if it's listed

> in the ephemeris, we're talking about the time the

> aspect goes exact. And a conjunction goes exact at

> zero degrees of distance between the planets in

> question. The two zodiacs share the same planets, they

> just define the degree of longitudinal location

> differently. Therefore, ANY aspect between planets

> (and eclipses or occultations are by definition an

> aspect between planets or lights) happens at the same

> TIME in either zodiac. It is impossible for them to

> happen at different TIMEs.

>

> So, to reiterate: Anything that is a matter of

> DISTANCE BETWEEN PLANETS OR LIGHTS (aspects including

> eclipses) will happen at the same TIME sidereally and

> tropically.

>

> However an INGRESS is not a distance between planets.

> An ingress is when a particular planet (in this case

> Moon) ENTERS A SIGN. Since this by definition has only

> to do with SIGNs, then you will have a different TIME

> for the S.ingress versus the T.ingress since the two

> signs are 23-odd degrees apart.

>

> I don't calculate the Moon's T.ingresses. I just look

> at the T.calendar. If I didn't have a calendar, I'd

> find it in my T.ephemeris. So I can't help you on

> calculating the times.

>

> Thank you by the way for the link to your S.ephemeris.

> I haven't looked at it yet, but doesn't it list the

> Moon's S.ingresses? Isn't it typical for an ephemeris

> to do so? If you don't get an answer from someone

> else, you might want to try writing to this Michael

> Mahesh Taft you mention and see if he listed the

> Moon's S.Ingresses elsewhere.

>

> Then again, for all I know, the Moon's ingresses are

> unimportant Vedically and that may be why it isn't

> commonly listed in a sidereal ephemeris. Then you

> might just be left with looking up the correct

> ayanamsha (do I have that right?) and calculating the

> time the Moon needs to travel that and adding those 46

> odd hours to the T.Ingress time since the Moon would

> enter S.Leo 23 odd degrees later than it enters T.Leo.

>

> And please let me know if I still haven't addressed

> the right question. I'll try again.

>

> ;-)

>

>

>

> New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

>