Guest guest Posted May 1, 2004 Report Share Posted May 1, 2004 Not that it matters but it was Garth Allen who proposed the O Tau, Fagan adopted it and applied it. Have asked several staunch siderealists why 0 Tau. Have not found a good answer. So going forward why is 0 Aries any better? Sun at/on Mar 21 is at maximum of cycle not beginning. Why are we locked in on 0 Aries? You have sparked my interest in Krishna's writings, I will search for material. Kit Karson Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: At 12:51 PM 4/30/04 -0700, Kit wrote: >>Hi Therese.......So using the Lahiri/ Krishna do you count from O Tau or O Aries? Zero Aries, always. Only Fagan hyptothesized that the zodiac should begin with Taurus. There is no concept like this in India. >>In my use of novien charts I have stayed strictly with F/B rules. Open for change. The main thing I like about novien's is using Sexascope for compatibility charts etc....It also shows irregular attractions or I think Fagan used deviant. I have used the navamsa chart for the same purpose, noting the sexuality of a person and also as a comparison between two people. I also use the navamsa in other ways. If you have any horoscope in front of you, you'll find that the Lahiri positions are 53 minutes greater than Fagan-Bradley. The Krishnamurti planetary positions are 59 minutes greater, just under a degree. As you can see, K and L are very close. K.N. Krishnamurti adjusted the Lahiri ayanamsa on the basis of very precise horary work. He'd ask, for example, " When will the package arrive? " He worked it out almost to the second of time over many years, based on the sub-periods within signs in relation to clock times. His system is called the K.P. System. Unfortunately, the books are badly written from an English point of view. I believe his children set down the system in books to the best of their ability. The writing is poor. Blessings, Therese " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2004 Report Share Posted May 1, 2004 Hi Kit and Therese, I think Fagan and others have made the case that the lunar zodiac began near the Moon's exaltation and Alcyone in the Pleiades, and that the Arabs, Hindus and Chinese regarded this as the beginning of their zodiac. What better place to start a lunar based zodiac than in Taurus? Perhaps the zodiacs from the ceiling of the temple of Hathor in Egypt, originally discovered by Napoleon's savants, and dated to approx 17 AD showing the beginning of the zodiac as 15 stars/degrees from Aldebaran influenced Fagan on the 0 Taurus idea. Ptolemy adopted 0 Aries from the earler work of Hipparchus (300 years earlier), who was using this 0 reference point to measure the position of stars. That this should have remained forever as the beginning of the zodiac is certainly a wonder. Krittika, the original fisrt nakshatra of the Hindus, obviously became subordinate to Asvini (ruling the upper soles of the feet) at some point in time (who knows when?). It seems unlikely that a first nakshatra would start at 26Aries40, thus handily allowing Asvini to begin at 0 Aries 00. In my own work, evolved over years of reorienting myself to Taurus, I'm convinced that the Hindu house meanings were derived from this original scheme ,although I'm sure now long forgotten and obscured. Best wishes, Steve > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2004 Report Share Posted May 1, 2004 Hi Therese... Having read Fagan's writing's, Aries was never the first sign. Do we have to review this again? Historically the original signs were fluvial----do you belive this or not? So Libra not Aries is the first sign of zodiac. There are many differences I know. But no I disagree with Aries being the first sign, it's all toooo conventional which the CHURCH distorted many thousands of years ago. I more align my thinking with Libra being the first sign. Fagan makes a good case which is backed by history and fact. Why haven't we after all these years uncovered the real PENTADES. Surely we can put these clues together. Maybe not. Aries may have been the first sign at some point in time. It holds no value now. Purely historical in nature, the world is expanding at alarming rate. Clearly it's taking longer for planet's and stars to make revolutions. Love and Light KK At 03:34 PM 4/30/04 -0700, Kit wrote: >Not that it matters but it was Garth Allen who proposed the O Tau, Fagan adopted it and applied it. Gee....I should have known that! Have asked several staunch siderealists why 0 Tau. Have not found a good answer. As far as I know,it's because 28 lunar mansions began with the Pleiades in Taurus. But historically when the zodiac came into being in Mesopotamia and later began to be used for horoscopes in Hellenistic times, Aries was the first sign. So going forward why is 0 Aries any better? Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, tropical or sidereal. Anyhow...it works for the Jyotish varga charts! You have sparked my interest in Krishna's writings, I will search for material. Unfortuntely I believe the K.P. system is only the writings of his children. Krishnamurti perhaps didn't write in English. I'm not sure. Astroamerica.com may have some of the books or could tell you where to find them. There are also some scattered smaller books by authors who describe how they use the system. K used the system mainly for horary timing, so he used the Placidus house system. However, the nakshatras work very well in the dasa system and with transits. Say a planet transits a natal planet. The nakshatra lord and sub is the key to where and how the transit will act. Therese " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2004 Report Share Posted May 1, 2004 Hi Therese.......Clearly you have a learning of Vedic/Jyotish which I'm not familiar with. I will begin immediately to study such material. I'm very willing to understand and apply a new venue. Frawley is close to a friend of mine. Have you read Conversation's With God Book 2 by Neale Walsch. Quite literally it makes a liar of us all. We're sooooo out of touch with any realistic time convention. It makes me doubt any astrology prediction because the of restricted TIME co-ordinates. There off. Way off. We can Leap ahead and predict what's going to happen, but only if we begin to understand and measure the Correct time we're dealing with. I'm not so sure that will happen. we're so locked in to the 24 hr day. The UNIVERSE is expanding at an alarming rate. What happened 100 years ago can't be predicted today with same idealogy. We must leap ahead. Maybe soon I hope. KK Kit Karson <skyguides wrote: Hi Therese... Having read Fagan's writing's, Aries was never the first sign. Do we have to review this again? Historically the original signs were fluvial----do you belive this or not? So Libra not Aries is the first sign of zodiac. There are many differences I know. But no I disagree with Aries being the first sign, it's all toooo conventional which the CHURCH distorted many thousands of years ago. I more align my thinking with Libra being the first sign. Fagan makes a good case which is backed by history and fact. Why haven't we after all these years uncovered the real PENTADES. Surely we can put these clues together. Maybe not. Aries may have been the first sign at some point in time. It holds no value now. Purely historical in nature, the world is expanding at alarming rate. Clearly it's taking longer for planet's and stars to make revolutions. Love and Light KK At 03:34 PM 4/30/04 -0700, Kit wrote: >Not that it matters but it was Garth Allen who proposed the O Tau, Fagan adopted it and applied it. Gee....I should have known that! Have asked several staunch siderealists why 0 Tau. Have not found a good answer. As far as I know,it's because 28 lunar mansions began with the Pleiades in Taurus. But historically when the zodiac came into being in Mesopotamia and later began to be used for horoscopes in Hellenistic times, Aries was the first sign. So going forward why is 0 Aries any better? Aries is the first sign of the zodiac, tropical or sidereal. Anyhow...it works for the Jyotish varga charts! You have sparked my interest in Krishna's writings, I will search for material. Unfortuntely I believe the K.P. system is only the writings of his children. Krishnamurti perhaps didn't write in English. I'm not sure. Astroamerica.com may have some of the books or could tell you where to find them. There are also some scattered smaller books by authors who describe how they use the system. K used the system mainly for horary timing, so he used the Placidus house system. However, the nakshatras work very well in the dasa system and with transits. Say a planet transits a natal planet. The nakshatra lord and sub is the key to where and how the transit will act. Therese " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2004 Report Share Posted May 1, 2004 At 09:24 PM 4/30/04 -0700, Steve wrote: > > >Hi Kit and Therese, > >I think Fagan and others have made the case that the lunar zodiac began >near the Moon's exaltation and Alcyone in the Pleiades, and that the >Arabs, Hindus and Chinese regarded this as the beginning of their >zodiac. What better place to start a lunar based zodiac than in Taurus? True of the *lunar* zodiac. This was during the Taurus precessional age before the 12 sign zodiac evolved or was discovered. The zodiac of 12 signs evolved much later during the Aries precessional cycle. As I've suggested before, it's possible that the solar and lunar zodiacs are two different entitites--one beginning with Alacyone, the other beginnng with zero Aries. >Perhaps the zodiacs from the ceiling of the temple of Hathor in Egypt, >originally discovered by Napoleon's savants, and dated to approx 17 AD >showing the beginning of the zodiac as 15 stars/degrees from Aldebaran >influenced Fagan on the 0 Taurus idea. *Perhaps*....We now have exact translations of the positions of stars in relation to the earliest Mesopotamian zodiac, and these translations don't support the 15 Aldebaran/Antares 15 degrees for the sidereal solar zodiac. See: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm Click on Mesopotamian Zodiac. I hope the site works. In the process of 'improving' the server, the tech guys messed up the timer, but I think the links still work. Please post a messge here if the links aren't working. As Rob Hand has commented, Fagan was right about the influence of Egypt on horoscopic astrology. The period was just later than Fagan believed, after Egypt had been exposed to Mesopotamian thought. I don't have time to look up this quote. It's on Rob Hand's site. > Ptolemy adopted 0 Aries from the earler work of Hipparchus (300 years >earlier), who was using this 0 reference point to measure the position >of stars. That this should have remained forever as the beginning of >the zodiac is certainly a wonder. No, the Aries zodiac goes further back to Mesopotamia. Ptolemy put zero Aries at the equinox. Before that it was tied to the stars. >In my own work, evolved over years of reorienting myself to Taurus, I'm >convinced that the Hindu house meanings were derived from this original >scheme ,although I'm sure now long forgotten and obscured. The Hindu house meanings came straight from Hellenistic astrology. It's too bad that so many of the Project Hindsight (Robert Scmidt and Robert Hand) quickly went out of print. They're working on re-prints, but who knows when they'll be published? I bought all of them the instant they were published. We can't be up to date without those translations, which happened well after Fagan, Bradley, Stahl and all passed on to the next world. Sincerely, Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 Therese wrote: True of the *lunar* zodiac. This was during the Taurus precessional age > before the 12 sign zodiac evolved or was discovered. The zodiac of 12 > signs evolved much later during the Aries precessional cycle. Hi Therese, Yes, I agree this seems to be the case. There is a reference to a wheel with 12 divisions mentioned in one of the four Vedas (the Rig I believe) but this cannot be misconstrued as anything like horoscopic astrology. A few of the planets are mentioned as well, and a number of authors point to some semblance of the signs-- noting at the same time that these names may not have anything to do with the zodiac per se but may instead refer to the bull, the ram etc. > > > As I've suggested before, it's possible that the solar and lunar zodiacs > are two different entitites--one beginning with Alacyone, the other > beginnng with zero Aries. I'm certainly not a scholar on this subject, but most of my investigations, like yours, have led me in this direction. The best thing I've seen on the origins of the 28 divisions from the Vedas, is in a 50 page article by Dr. S Balakrishnan PHD. I was going to give the link to the site, only to find out it has recently been pulled due to inactivity. As you have already pointed out, early references to the the nakshatras were made in reference to the princilpe stars in that group rather than a set division of space. For instance Krittika was associated with the principle star Alcyone while Magha was associated with Regulus etc. Dr. Balakrishna points out, as does David Frawley in his " Gods, Sages and Kings " references in the Atharva Veda to the grouping of 28 nakshatras beginning with Krittika. There are earlier reference to various nakshatras, I think as far back as the Rig Veda-- 4,000 to 6000 BCE. Here the nakshatras are not mentioned as a group but singly, and as Frawley has attempted to prove, in relation to the equinoxes and solstices. His dating of the Rig Veda in fact in part is based on the reference to the vernal equinox appearing in Punarvasu (Gemini) while the winter solstice occurs in Revati (Pisces). Dr. Balakrishna's very imortant contribution to the dating of the Atharva Veda has to do with a verse by the Rishi Garga wherin the 28 nakshatras beginning from Krittika are mentioned along with a reference to the summer solstice appearing in Magha. Frawley mentions this same reference and gives it a time frame of 2480 to 1760 BC to cover the full 13* 20' of Magha. Balakrishna on the other hand, makes use of the knowledge that nakshatras at that time, prior to the being fit into 13* 20' divisions were in fact referenced to a single star, in this case Regulus. Balakrisna now makes the date for this statement by Garga Muni as approx 2400 BCE, when in fact, the vernal equinox was nearly precisely conjunct Alcyone while the summer solstice occured at the conjunction with Regulus. If you look at this in Solar Fire, it's a beautiful thing. Dating for the equinox is April 10, 2400 BC while the solstice is July 13, 2400 BC. We are within about a degree here of exact conjunction. This *minor* discovery may in fact be the first actual dating of the appearance of the 28 nakshatras in the Vedas. > > > *Perhaps*....We now have exact translations of the positions of stars in > relation to the earliest Mesopotamian zodiac, and these translations don't > support the 15 Aldebaran/Antares 15 degrees for the sidereal solar zodiac. Very nice site by the way--however I don't see anything there on the exact measurement of Aldebaran/Antares. As you state, " Its a toss up " between Fagan and Lahiri/Krishnamurthi regarding at least other measurements. I'd like to know more on how we can " put to rest " the measurement of Aldebaran, Antares, Regulus etc by Fagan--within a degree or so? or are we talking 15 degrees or more? Whatever we are talking about-- in degrees or less than a degree, how does that invalidate the drawing of the Ezna zodiac on the ceiling of theTemple in Khnum? Fagan states from " Astrological Origins " : " Here they denoted the first half of the zodiac commenced with the constellation Taurus and the second half with Scorpio. These winged creatures had nothing to do with Aries the Ram. They could not possibly represent the equinoctical point for on October 4, 137 BC, the date of the zodiac, these were in Aries 5* and Libra 5* respectively " .....This temple was built during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes II, 23rd dynasty, 144-115 BC. " Three separate festivals for the new year are apparenty inscribed on the walls of the temple and dated by Fagan as all occurring in either 137 or 136 BCE. Is the above incorrect by modern scholarship? If so perhaps you can point me to an article or book that discredits Fagan's work on this. Here I am not concerned with anything being a degree or so out, I am also not concerned with ayanamsa here---Taurus appears to be the leader, whether from purely Egyptian, Mesopotamian or other sources. <http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm> > > > > Ptolemy adopted 0 Aries from the earler work of Hipparchus (300 years > >earlier), who was using this 0 reference point to measure the position > >of stars. That this should have remained forever as the beginning of > >the zodiac is certainly a wonder. > > No, the Aries zodiac goes further back to Mesopotamia. Ptolemy put zero > Aries at the equinox. Before that it was tied to the stars. This is what I meant ie, Ptolemy used 0 Aries to mark the equinox as did Hipparchus. > > > > > The Hindu house meanings came straight from Hellenistic astrology. > It's too > bad that so many of the Project Hindsight (Robert Scmidt and Robert Hand) > quickly went out of print. They're working on re-prints, but who knows > when > they'll be published? I bought all of them the instant they were > published. > We can't be up to date without those translations, which happened well > after Fagan, Bradley, Stahl and all passed on to the next world. I have all the Hindsight books for years collecting dust on the shelves and pulled them out to see what I could see on houses. Very difficult going I'm afraid, especially early on. Vetius Valens talks about houses and derived meanings. Things obviously get much clearer by the time we are at Johannes Schoener at the end of the 15th century. >From what I've read, it appears that both Valens and Ptolemy made visits to the library at Alexandria during the development of their ideas--wherein were housed among other books, many Indian texts. I think Robert Hand sums up my feelings on this issue, from the " History of Astrology--Another View " : " The question of debt or lack thereof of Hindu astrology to Hellenistic is an extremely controversial one. Many authors of the Hindu school would like to deny that there was any at all. This position is a bit hard to support given the above, and also given the very frequent references to the " Yavannas " who were the Greeks or more precisely Greek speaking persons of various ethnic extractions " " On the other hand there are Westerners, of whom the author is not one, who believe Hindu astrology comes entirely from the West (or more precisely Middle East). David Pingree is his study of the Yavanajataka does an extremely thorough job of cataloging the parallels between the of that work and and that of the Greeks, and even he is forced to admit that there are many differences. However such differences do not require two different origins. All it requires is a period of isolation between two branches of a tradition after an earlier period of unity, such that the two branches can diverge, and one, the eastern, merge with the native traditions already in place. While we do not insist that Hindu astrology is entirely or even principally an offshoot of Hellenistic astrology, it must be said that the required period of isolation did occur which could have caused a single tradition to become two. " Best, Steve > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.