Guest guest Posted March 14, 2003 Report Share Posted March 14, 2003 Now that we have the attention of top siderealists (Guess you've been lurking, Ken?), I have a question I'd like to have the answer to. I'm reading on page 7, top lefthand column of Fagan's THE SOLUNARS HANDBOOK: " So what was the original zodiac? Modern archaeological research has PROVED conclusively that it was a sidereal zodiac, or fixed zodiac of the constellations, the initial point of which was: 35 deg distant from the Pleiades 45 distant from Aldebaran 125 distant from Regulus 179 distant from Spica (end of quote) Caps mine. I know that this is what Fagan taught, and this is the zodiac western siderealists use. But what is the 'modern archaelogical research' that PROVES this exact mathematical zodiac? I'm asking because everything I've read from Project Hindsight and Arhat, as well as the corrected positions of the ancient horoscopes in publications like THE ASTROLOGICAL HISTORY OF MASHA'ALLAH points to a sidereal zodiac with a mysterious beginning point that scholars cannot seem to find. (The 'Raman' zodiac used in India seems to come the closest.) So, can anyone enlighten me? I know about Donald Bradley's research, but it has never been replicated and was done in the 20th century. If the answer is in THE SOLUNARS HANDBOOK or ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS, I have those two books and apologize if I've missed something. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 Hello Terese, I found the mail of you in the archives (around 2003). I am also waiting for an used examplar of MASHA'ALLAH book you mention from a Montana book store (55$US on amazon, with delivery in Quebec). Meanwhile, to give me an idea of what Masha'allah work with, can you give us a date with position of planets from this book, or can you point us somewhere to your website with an answer? -- Regards, François - " François Carrière " <alchocoden <alchocoden Friday, January 05, 2007 5:20 PM Fwd: Mathematics of the ancient zodiac , Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: Now that we have the attention of top siderealists (Guess you've been lurking, Ken?), I have a question I'd like to have the answer to. I'm reading on page 7, top lefthand column of Fagan's THE SOLUNARS HANDBOOK: " So what was the original zodiac? Modern archaeological research has PROVED conclusively that it was a sidereal zodiac, or fixed zodiac of the constellations, the initial point of which was: 35 deg distant from the Pleiades 45 distant from Aldebaran 125 distant from Regulus 179 distant from Spica (end of quote) Caps mine. I know that this is what Fagan taught, and this is the zodiac western siderealists use. But what is the 'modern archaelogical research' that PROVES this exact mathematical zodiac? I'm asking because everything I've read from Project Hindsight and Arhat, as well as the corrected positions of the ancient horoscopes in publications like THE ASTROLOGICAL HISTORY OF MASHA'ALLAH points to a sidereal zodiac with a mysterious beginning point that scholars cannot seem to find. (The 'Raman' zodiac used in India seems to come the closest.) So, can anyone enlighten me? I know about Donald Bradley's research, but it has never been replicated and was done in the 20th century. If the answer is in THE SOLUNARS HANDBOOK or ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS, I have those two books and apologize if I've missed something. Therese --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 Francois, what's the name of the book you have ordered? I have two or three by Masha'allah. My apologies for not being able to put the little curl on the 'c' in your name. I know it changes the pronunciaton because I studied French at one time. I use a simple, stripped down mail program that doesn't allow for special characters. (I forget what that little curl is called...?) Therese At 10:01 AM 1/6/07 -0500, Francois wrote: >Hello Terese, > >I found the mail of you in the archives (around 2003). I am also waiting for >an used examplar of MASHA'ALLAH book you mention from a Montana book store >(55$US on amazon, with delivery in Quebec). Meanwhile, to give me an idea of >what Masha'allah work with, can you give us a date with position of planets >from this book, or can you point us somewhere to your website with an >answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 At 06:09 PM 1/6/07 -0500, Francois wrote: >It is «Astrological History of Masha'allah» from E S Kennedy and D Pingree >(hard cover). But none from Masha'allah himself. It is just to give me and >idea about him and History. I would rather work with book by DeFouw and >Svoboda (Light on Life) or Levacy (I like his books). I also have a French >translation of the Matheseos from Maternus, which can give and idea of how >they understood (tropical although low ayanamsha - circa 280-360 AD) which >should be like what Indian texts report. Hi Francois, The Astrologial History has to do with the Jupiter/Saturn cycles through history. Masha'allah was born in CE 572. Thus the charts span many years in history. The translators say on page 75 that Masha'allah used the sidereal year in his calculations. In Appendix 2 the text positions are given along with the computed calculations. You really have to study the entire book to understand the patterns and calculations. It's much easier to understand Robert Hand's translation of Masha'allah: On Reception. Here are a few of the example positions: Text Charts by # Raman Zodiac Mars-1: 17 30 18 10 Mars-2: 15 18 16 29 Jup-1: 19 15 18 50 Jup-2: 9 13 8 36 Sat-1: 10 15 10 47 Sat-2: 4 15 3 48 The text calculations move around on either side of the Raman zodiac positions. So it isn't possible to zero in on an ayanamsa. All we can say is that the closest modern zodiac ot Masha'allah's is the Raman zodiac. If the numbers don't line up on the screen, ask to 'reply' to the post and the text will then be aligned. Hope this helps. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 Hello Terese, , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: > Text Charts by # Raman Zodiac > > Mars-1: 17 30 18 10 > Mars-2: 15 18 16 29 > > Jup-1: 19 15 18 50 > Jup-2: 9 13 8 36 > > Sat-1: 10 15 10 47 > Sat-2: 4 15 3 48 > > The text calculations move around on either side of the Raman zodiac > positions. So it isn't possible to zero in on an ayanamsa. All we can say > is that the closest modern zodiac ot Masha'allah's is the Raman zodiac. Thank you for your time. I think I sometime believe I can find " scientific " results from what was observed with the naked eye. I remember you citing Rob Hand were «we have to find by ourselve» the ayanamsha used in the past. The positions you have given may even validate Krushna Jugalkalini's ayanamsha (polar longitude of Spica?): Raman + 0:33:38 (22:58:18 in 2000.0)... -- Regards, François Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 > Francois wrote: > Thank you for your time. I think I sometime believe I can > find " scientific " results from what was observed with the naked eye. > I remember you citing Rob Hand were ?we have to find by ourselve? the > ayanamsha used in the past... ------------------------------- No, that isn't quite what I meant. Rob Hand said, and I agree, that's it's up to us to decide *today* what ayanamsa is the most valid. We know that there was no one exact zodiac in ancient times. So we can't 'discover' a zodiac that didn't exist. We know only that the first zodiac was sidereal, but it was not an exact to-the-minute zodiac. This is because it wasn't possible to compute planets to the minute. There were no computers, and much was based on observation. Well...at least an exact ancient zodiac hasn't been disoovered by scholars yet if one actually existed. That's why I put two articles on my web site that lists the positions of the planets from old texts. Therese ------------ This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. http://www.snowcrest.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 Hi, Therese (Teresa?); Speaking of ayanamsas, do I recall you quoting Edgar Cayce on astrology? I studied his writings and came away with the impression that the Sidereal Zodiac is the more accurate, and what's more that Arcturus a Bootis was the center of our galaxy. So I used Arcturus as my ayanamsha for years. Has anyone else heard this or used Arcturus in their studies? And why are Tropical charts used in Cayce books? , eastwest wrote: > > > Francois wrote: > > Thank you for your time. I think I sometime believe I can > > find " scientific " results from what was observed with the naked eye. > > I remember you citing Rob Hand were ?we have to find by ourselve? the > > ayanamsha used in the past... > ------------------------------- > > No, that isn't quite what I meant. Rob Hand said, and I agree, that's it's up > to us to decide *today* what ayanamsa is the most valid. We know that there was > no one exact zodiac in ancient times. So we can't 'discover' a zodiac that > didn't exist. We know only that the first zodiac was sidereal, but it was not > an exact to-the-minute zodiac. This is because it wasn't possible to compute > planets to the minute. There were no computers, and much was based on > observation. > > Well...at least an exact ancient zodiac hasn't been disoovered by scholars yet > if one actually existed. That's why I put two articles on my web site that > lists the positions of the planets from old texts. > > Therese > > ------------ > This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. > http://www.snowcrest.net > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 Hello Don. Can you give the fiducial sidereal position and date for Acturus? -- Regards, François - " Don Ridgway " <scribe Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:22 PM Re: Mathematics of the ancient zodiac Hi, Therese (Teresa?); Speaking of ayanamsas, do I recall you quoting Edgar Cayce on astrology? I studied his writings and came away with the impression that the Sidereal Zodiac is the more accurate, and what's more that Arcturus a Bootis was the center of our galaxy. So I used Arcturus as my ayanamsha for years. Has anyone else heard this or used Arcturus in their studies? And why are Tropical charts used in Cayce books? , eastwest wrote: > > > Francois wrote: > > Thank you for your time. I think I sometime believe I can > > find " scientific " results from what was observed with the naked eye. > > I remember you citing Rob Hand were ?we have to find by ourselve? the > > ayanamsha used in the past... > ------------------------------- > > No, that isn't quite what I meant. Rob Hand said, and I agree, that's it's up > to us to decide *today* what ayanamsa is the most valid. We know that there was > no one exact zodiac in ancient times. So we can't 'discover' a zodiac that > didn't exist. We know only that the first zodiac was sidereal, but it was not > an exact to-the-minute zodiac. This is because it wasn't possible to compute > planets to the minute. There were no computers, and much was based on > observation. > > Well...at least an exact ancient zodiac hasn't been disoovered by scholars yet > if one actually existed. That's why I put two articles on my web site that > lists the positions of the planets from old texts. > > Therese > > ------------ > This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. > http://www.snowcrest.net > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 Francois, I took Cayce to say that it was Sidereally 0 Aries, since he referenced it as the " central sun. " Arcturus a Bootis is roughly 24 minutes Long W and 29 degrees Lat N of Spica a Virginis. In Vivian Robson's " The Fixed Stars & Constellations in Astrology, " ISBN 0877280339, in her " Positions of the Chief Stars... " table they are side-by-side. So since so many astrologers used Spica as their ayanamsa I have always watched for references to Arcturus, or anomalies with Spica, with great interest. - ALCHOCODEN Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:59 PM Re: Re: Mathematics of the ancient zodiac Hello Don. Can you give the fiducial sidereal position and date for Acturus? -- Regards, François - " Don Ridgway " <scribe Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:22 PM Re: Mathematics of the ancient zodiac Hi, Therese (Teresa?); Speaking of ayanamsas, do I recall you quoting Edgar Cayce on astrology? I studied his writings and came away with the impression that the Sidereal Zodiac is the more accurate, and what's more that Arcturus a Bootis was the center of our galaxy. So I used Arcturus as my ayanamsha for years. Has anyone else heard this or used Arcturus in their studies? And why are Tropical charts used in Cayce books? , eastwest wrote: > > > Francois wrote: > > Thank you for your time. I think I sometime believe I can > > find " scientific " results from what was observed with the naked eye. > > I remember you citing Rob Hand were ?we have to find by ourselve? the > > ayanamsha used in the past... > ------------------------------- > > No, that isn't quite what I meant. Rob Hand said, and I agree, that's it's up > to us to decide *today* what ayanamsa is the most valid. We know that there was > no one exact zodiac in ancient times. So we can't 'discover' a zodiac that > didn't exist. We know only that the first zodiac was sidereal, but it was not > an exact to-the-minute zodiac. This is because it wasn't possible to compute > planets to the minute. There were no computers, and much was based on > observation. > > Well...at least an exact ancient zodiac hasn't been disoovered by scholars yet > if one actually existed. That's why I put two articles on my web site that > lists the positions of the planets from old texts. > > Therese > > ------------ > This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail. > http://www.snowcrest.net > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 At 03:47 PM 1/7/07 -0500, Don wrote: >Francois, >I took Cayce to say that it was Sidereally 0 Aries, since he referenced it as the " central sun. " Don, I've always believed that Cayce meant that in the spiritual sense just as the ancient Egyptian initiates saw Sirius as a libeating God of sorts. I mean the soul took its flight to Sirius during the final spiritual initiation. (Earlyne Cheney, Initiation in the Great Pyramid). Arcturus has fairly fast proper motion, and its minutes of longitude will change over the centuries. I printed this out from the internet a while ago, but don't know exactly where that reference is right now. But, yes...it's an intriguing idea that Acturus might be a significant zodiac anchoring point. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2007 Report Share Posted January 8, 2007 Vivian Robson is a man. Unusual name for a man, yes. 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.