Guest guest Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 At 02:43 AM 5/4/04 -0700, Steve wrote: >>[TH wrote] As I've suggested before, it's possible that the solar and lunar zodiacs >> are two different entitites--one beginning with Alacyone, the other >> beginning with zero Aries. > >[steve wrote] As you have already pointed out, early references to the the nakshatras >were made in reference to the principle 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'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. Steve, I found the pages I printed out from Dr. B's site, but can't find the reference to Regulus, which happens to be at the center of today's Magha lunar mansion today. I have only the first 9 of 38 pages. Could you give the Regulus quote if you have it? >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. This is an interesting perspective! >...however I don't see anything [on your site] on the >exact measurement of Aldebaran/Antares. As you state, " Its a toss up " >between Fagan and Lahiri/Krishnamurthi regarding at least other >measurements. Aldebaran and Antares weren't listed in the star list relating to the beginning of signs of the zodiac. However, Regulus is there: Beginning of Leo: 4 deg 48' plus or minus 54 minutes before Normal star 18 (alpha Leonis) Which puts us in the same Fagan/Lahiri/Krishnamurti stew pot. Basically this puts Regulus anywhere between 4 and 6 Leo. The Fagan postion is 5 and the L/K degree is 6. Yes, Fagan falls at the midpoint of the degree span... One of the Project Hindsight translations--Liber Hermetis Part 2--lists the positions of stars in the zodiac from various known and unknown sources. As I recall (I'm not sure where my reference list is) Aldebaran and Antares were indeed listed at 15 Taurus/ Scorpio, but the majority of the other stars were given coordinates that agree with Lahiri-Krishnamurti. So we keep coming back to the general fuzziness of exact degrees in the ancient Mesopotamian zodiac. >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? Steve, I'd like to know where Fagan's idea came from in the first place, because in all the reading I've done, I can't find any reference to Aldebaran/Antares being at exactly 15 degrees except the Liber Hermetis text which puts most of the other stars in the L-K framework. >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 " What page is this on? Fagan states in many places as fact that the zodiac came from an Egypt. (Which he believed would have predated the Mesopotamian zodiac material, had he known about it.) But there is nothing out there to support his conjecture. he talks about the exaltations originating from a certain date in Egypt, but it's historical fact that these come from Mesopotamia and were general areas of the constellations, and not the position of the planets on a certain date. >....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? I'm not sure what this has to do with trying to show that the zodiac began with Taurus. I'm a bit fuzzy on the connection. Maybe you can try to explain this again? (Or point me to the pages in Astrological Origins...?) 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. I'm not getting this..., so please refer me to the pages in AO. Thanks... I do find Fagan's writing in AO rather confusing in many places. He didn't always have the gift of clarity. And I found some statements today that just aren't true. But let's stay with the concept of the beginning of the zodiac. >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. Robert Schmidt has written a good summary of the houses. One article was in TMA. Re: the houses, perhaps we should wait for the new publications of PH, which are beginning next month. I hope I've made sense here. After work on five teeth, one major-major, I'm not feeling so well...I opted to have most of the work done at one time. I bow down to the holy Visa card, receiver of all cash flow. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2004 Report Share Posted May 6, 2004 At 03:11 AM 5/6/04 -0700, Steve wrote: >Wishing you well with your teeth, from one whos' entire mouth is root >canals and crowns (praying for better 2nd house karma in my next life). Steve, you have my sympathies. Welcome to the club! I suppose we're fortunate that we can pay for it all in one way or another. My daughter, who lives in India, pays $5 for what I have done here for $135. (one white composite filling) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >The quote is from Sanskrit-the important words are " ayanam magha mey " >(found on page 31),....(quote deleted to keep post short) >... >The above approx date, (if correct), appears to correspond fairly >closely to the beginnings of Hellenistic astrology. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It all more or less comes together, then doesn't it? Thanks for these quotes, Steve, since I didn't print out those pages. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> [TH] Steve, I'd like to know where Fagan's idea came from in the first >> place, because in all the reading I've done, I can't find any reference to >> Aldebaran/Antares being at exactly 15 degrees except the Liber Hermetis >> text which puts most of the other stars in the L-K framework. > >[steve] Fagan defined Aldebaran/Antares with reference to the first magnitude >star Spica or Chitra (as it is known in India). Mr. Fagan outlines this >in his " Zodiacs Old and New " pages 31/32. >Fagan states: " When I first discovered that Spica was the original >fiducial or marking star of the ancient zodiac, I naturally assumed that >it was placed diametrically opposite to the initial point of the zodiac, >Aries 0.00*, that is, in Libra 0.00*, especially so as in the Soma, >Surya, Vriddha-Vashita and Brahma siddhantas (the ancient Sanskrit works >of astrology) Chitra's longitude is given as 180*. " > > " But the graph indicates that the longitudes of the autumnal point for >the dates of the Hypsomata, Naburiannu, Kiddinnu ,the mean position of >the autumnal point for the Babylonian Planetary Texts, and that for the >Stobart Demotic Texts make it abundantly clear that Spica's longitude is >assumed to be 29* (179 *). This associates better with the tradition >which always associated the " spike of corn " as being in the agricultural >sign of Virgo. Nowhere in the literature of antiquity is Spica >associated with Libra. " >Donald Bradley (aka Garth Allen) in attempting to rectify this point >further with his own statistical work, re-defined this point to 29 Virgo >06 05.(thus the difference between the Fagan and Fagan/Allen ayanamsa) >According to Fagan, it was not then realized (and therefore not a >contrivance) that Allens slight correction had placed the longitude of >Aldebaran the Bull's Eye (when measured with reference to Spica) at >exactly 15. 00.00 Taurus. > >I believe this is it in a nutshell. As far as I know, *all* Indian >ayanamsa's place Spica at 0.00 Libra or greater and therefore the Bull's >Eye is taken to be 15.53 Taurus at minimum. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks for this quote, which I'm leaving in my reply post because this is a western Sidereal list. I was never able to find a copy of ZODIACS OLD AND NEW. I believe what it all boils down to is Fagan's interpretation of what he found (Fagan not being trained academically) contrasted to the actual translations of ancient texts by scholars, to which they added their commentaries. As we've seen in the star lists I've posted on my website, Spica seems to have been recorded as being about 28 Virgo, which is certainly closer to 29 Virgo than the early minutes of Libra. However, this doesn't 'prove' that Spica should be at exactly 29 degrees of Virgo in a sidereal zodiac. It also doesn't prove that the ancients had the zodiac exactly right. How could they when measurement was so imprecise?? It's abundantly clear in the translated texts that the measurement of stars shifted around by a degree or so in relation to the the observational techniques that were used. In summary, we have: (1) Fagan's interpretation of his studies without verification from ancient translations (2) Records from ancient texts which give us a fuzzy zodiac in terms of degrees, but still within about degree and a half of the popular contemporary zodiacs. (2) Rob Hand's statement that it's up to us moderns to settle the zodiac question. This means our own research results. Even if we had very precise positions of the stars recorded in ancient texts, this wouldn't prove anything until we somehow could show that this was the ONLY sidereal zodiac that really works in modern times. For this we'd have to devise some kind of precise mathematical research. In terms of the exaltations, there's really no conflict between the Mesopotamian placement of the planets in general areas of the constellations and Fagan's discovery of how the exact degree meanings came about. So I guess we can put that controversy to rest?! I'm leaving your quote in here, because it's a really good quote. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Cyril Fagan uses Babylon as the location for the dating of the >hypsomatic longitudes (the degrees of planetary exaltation). The date is >April 3rd, 786 BC at First Nisan or the appearance of the first thin >crescent of the Moon just after it's conjunction with the Sun at sunset. >The Sun, Venus and Moon attain their respective degrees of exaltation on >that day and the remainder of the planets attain their degree's at their >heliacal rising or setting during the remainder of the year 786/85. >Cyril states from " Zodiacs Old and New " : " The odds against the Sun, >Moon and all the planets known to the ancients being in their hypsomatic >longitudes on New Year's Day or on the dates of their heliacal >phenomenom, during any one year is so enormous as to defy >calculation.... " > >This is the best and perhaps the only explanation for the exaltation >longitudes--and I am deeply indebted to Cyril Fagan for this brilliant >piece of research. >According to Fagan, the zodiac inscribed on the ceiling at the temple of >Khnum shows clearly Taurus leading the zodiac. The zodiac is dated as >137 BCE by dates of 3 festivals inscribed on the walls. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'll look into this further (reply in another post), but I believe this may be an interpretation issue since nowhere in the ancient translated texts is Taurus listed as the first sign of the zodiac. The Pleiades were always given as the first of the lunar stations. In the list of Mesopotamian normal stars given by Sachs-Hunger the first in the list of normal stars is eta Pisces, which is in today's Aries/Ashvini. It seems clear that the transition from stars of Taurus leading the mansions to Aries leading the zodiac came about during the time when the 12 sign zodiac was defined in Mesopotamia. Unless the zodiac is much older than ancient texts lead us to believe, there never was a Taurus zodiac. There WAS a system of isolated lunar stations which began with the Pleiades. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Fagan states in Astrological Orignis page 26: " Obviously, therefore as >late as 137 BC, this Greco-Eqyptian zodiac of the Ptolemaic period >commenced with the constellation Taurus. " >This date corresponds to the vernal point at 5 Aries--therefore there >seems to be a zodiac, made up of 12 signs, with a beginning of Taurus >not constructed during the Taurean Age and ,if a remnant of the Taurean >Age, then its memory persisting for nearly 2000 years after that age >had ended. > >The point being here that Fagan did not make up the idea of Taurus as >the beginning sign of the zodiac and that this at least is one record in >stone that such a zodiac did in fact exist. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steve, I'll study this further today, but right now it looks to me as if Fagan interpreted an old diagram that he studied in his own way. There is no verification of his findings/beliefs in any work of scholars to date. Note that the above quote says, " therefore there SEEMS to be a zodiac...with a beginning of Taurus.... " Wouldn't the mathematical star positions given in old tablets have more meaning than an interpretation of a diagram of the zodiac with no numerical notation? Also Rob Hand has pointed out that Fagan mistakingly placed astrology in Egypt at a much older time period than when it actually appeared there. I'll look up those pages in AO, and if you believe I'm fudging here in what seems to be a clear move from Taurus mansions to a normal star list to an Aries 12 sign zodiac, please let me know! I probably have to wait until this evening to check out AO, and I'll review the quotes in your post. Note that the ancient occult traditions DO give symbolic priority to the 4 fixed signs/constellations of the zodiac. This may have an unknown spiritual correlation that has nothing to do with the practical use of an astrological zodiac. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 At 12:36 AM 5/7/04 -0700, Steve wrote: >Fagan established that Spica was at 29 Virgo-- Hi Steve, Did you check out the Swiss Ephemeris link that Francois gave? That's the best summary I've seen of the early research on stellar drgrees (which placed Spica at 29+ Virgo, and which Fagan knew about--this was the source of placing Spica at 29 degrees). And then when Nick Kellerstrom studied ancient horoscopes he found that the positions actually fit zero Libra better. (This is in the same article.) I'm thinking that perhaps one reason Spica was always placed in Virgo was that it was in the constellation of Virgo, and no one wanted it to go into a sign called 'Libra.' This is just a thought. Two thirds of sidereal Libra are occupied by the stars of Virgo. There is no doubt that the ancient tablets placed Spica in Virgo, although this position didn't fit with the placements of some of the other stars. Aldebaran/Antares were two of the normal stars, but otherwise weren't give special significance. I think the Aldebaran/Antares emphasis came for the siderealists. There's a fairly new book (1998) that I bought a short time ago. It's not expensive ($20), and can be ordered from the American Philosophical Society on-line. It's BABYLONIAN HOROSCOPES by Francesca Rochberg. The book is just that: Babylonian horoscopes. I checked the postions against the F-B and L-K ayanamsas. The minus values are generally closer to the F-B values and the plus values are closer to L-K. Same problem! This book was used as a reference by Pingree when he wrote his latest (expensive) book on Mesopotamian astrology. It looks to me as if Rochberg did adopt the old research values (these were *mean* values) for noting the positions of the planets in the horoscopes. Being an academic book, I don't have the mental energy to plow through it again and find the reference. I have to give priority to finishing the sign articles. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [TH] In summary we have: >> (1) Fagan's interpretation of his studies without verification from >> ancient translations ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >[steve] You speak here as if Fagan made up everything he stated in his books, >despite his many references to authoritative texts of the times. [TH] Here I mainly mean his belief that the zodiac began with Taurus. He referred to the early research discussed in the Swiss Ephemeris article for the position of Spica. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [TH] >> (2) Rob Hand's statement that it's up to us moderns to settle the zodiac >> question... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >[steve] Does Hand offer any suggestions in this regard? [TH] Not that I know of. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >[steve] I think both are important [the diagram and text notations] and obviously so did Fagan, who had much more knowledge than myself on this. >[steve] Hand points out: > > " Although academic historians have not uncovered much concrete >information about the evolution of astrology after the early Babylonian >charts, there is considerable internal evidence for th place of origin in the earliest texts. Many of these old texts are ontained within this volume (referring to the Project Hindsight volume). According to these texts the birthplace of astrology as we know it is >Egypt. > > " This would not have been a surprise to Cyril Fagan. >He maintained almost alone that Egypt had been the birthplace of >horoscopic astrology. The trouble with his theory however is >that he believed that horoscopic astrology came into being in the Egypt >of the pharaohs. For this there is very little evidence outside of >Fagan's own somewhat questionable interpretations of the evidence. It >was a later Egypt that gave birth to horoscopic astrology, an Egypt >that had made close contact with the ideas of the Babylonians. " {TH] Yes, great quote! One of my favorites. Hand did a good job of summarizing here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> [TH] Note that the ancient occult traditions DO give symbolic priority to >> the 4 fixed signs/constellations of the zodiac. This may have an unknown >> spiritual correlation that has nothing to do with the practical use of >> an astrological zodiac. > >[steve] Yes one wonders about that....and so my fascination with this subject. >Symbolically at least, the representations of the fixed signs form the >great axis of life in my opinion . Taurus/Scorpio as the life/death axis >of the 1st/7th houses and Leo/Aquarius forming the >heart,home/community,service to humanity axis. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [TH]Taurus/Scorpio are the two zodiac signs that align with the parts of the body with openings into the body, the mouth and anus/sex organs. There has to be significance to this in terms of spiritual development, but then above the mouth is the cranium (Aries). I have a different view of Leo/Aquarius than you do. After I've posted these two signs on the Lost Zodaic site, I hope we can discuss their meanings here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >[steve] A simple overlaying of Taurus as the natural beginning of the zodiac, >brings about many revelations regarding the house meanings of the >Hindus, who do not claim to derive their house meanings from the natural >zodiac starting with Aries, and assign instead 'karakas' or planetary >significatiors for each house. How about elaborating on this?? I'm sure we'd all be interested! I'll have to find Schmidt's analysis of the houses from Hellenistic texts, and how he reasoned them out. Therese 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.