Multiple Zodiacs

[Guest guest]

At 12:06 PM 5/4/03 -0000, Ed wrote:

>Now, I have ONE question for y'all:

>

>What makes one sidereal zodiac better than another? If any of you

>are worth your salt, you can explain to me how all of these

>different " sidereal " zodiacs can be equally useful and valid.

 

The whole idea of the sidereal zodiac is that the planets are fixed in

relation to the stars for measurement over time. Ed, if you compute your

own sun within the sidereal framework, you'll find that it has 'moved' in

the Tropical zodiac by half a degree or so. This makes a BIG difference in

computing the angles of solar and lunar return charts and an astronomical

difference in transits to the horoscopes of cities over hundreds or

thousands of years.

 

No one has yet shown a reason why one sidereal zodiac is better than

another. However, the current sidereal zodiacs that are used and discussed

in the west today are less than a degree apart. That makes them essentially

identical until someone can show WHY one is better than the other when it's

less than a degree away from the other zodiacs.

 

There are only two zodiacs considered in the west: Fagan/Bradley and

Lahiri/Krishnamurti. It's rather fascinating that Bradley adjusted Fagan's

initial zodiac by about 6 minutes based on his research. The Indian

Krishnamurti adjusted the Lahiri zodiac by the same 6 minutes based on his

own very different research. Obviously we must be on to something here!!

 

The only other primary sidereal zodiac, Raman's, is used by a minority in

India. It was the old zodiac used before the government research which

isolated Spica as the fiducial star. This zodiac seems to be a corruption

that was adopted in India when there was mass confusion about the zodiac's

starting point a few hundred years A.D. It seems to be the same zodiac that

was 'frozen' and adopted by early Arabic astrologers. It has no obvious

fiducial star and is probably a slightly 'off' Tropical zodiac frozen in

the early centuries.

 

I've seen many articles in Indian magazines where astrologers who have

experimented with zodiacs discard the Raman zodiac because the varga

(harmonic) charts are wrong. So even Indians themselves through their own

research are discarding a bogus zodiac. Nevertheless, Raman and Co. (Raman

Publications and The Astrological Magazine) adhere strictly to this zodiac

because it's 'traditional.' It's revered because the illustrious Dr. B.V.

Raman used it in his work.

 

>And, then, maybe you can tell me why the Babylonians changed their

>zodiac's fiducial a few times over the centuries.

 

There is no evidence that the Babylonians changed their zodiac's fiducial.

There is indeed evidence (which I posted here a few weeks ago from the

Pingree/Hunger book) that they were a bit vague about sign cusp and star

positions within a degree or so.

 

I've never seen any evidence for the exact 15 degree Aldebaran/Antares

positions in the zodiac. Ken Bowser promised to give us something on this,

but hasn't replied yet.

 

Therese