sidereal right ascensions, 2

[Guest guest]

Let me make some general statements to describe what --normally-- sidereal

astrologers do astronomically speaking:

 

1-) represent the zodiacal positions of planets using a fiducial (the

particular sidereal zodiac) which is approximately free of precession in

longitude. In practical terms, the tropical positions are used as a source,

and a simplified formula of precession in longitude is applied to them that

ignores the effects on the longitude of the motion of the moving ecliptic

over the fixed ecliptic.

 

2-) ignore the precessional displacements in latitude, right ascension, and

declination. In practical terms, use the sidereal zodiacal longitudes

obtained from the approximate method above, but keep working with the

tropical latitude. If needed, strictly tropical --not sidereal-- right

ascensions and declinations are often used.

 

3-) use tropical, not sidereal, time-units with sidereal positions, and

viceversa, use sidereal time units but tropical positions. In practical

terms, when the " bija " corrections in progressions are ignored, sidereal

astrologers use tropical time units with sidereal positions, or, as in the

parans of the PSSR, use sidereal time units with tropical positions.

 

Very often astrologers believe that they are working in a sidereal

reference frame simply because positions are being represented in the (or

a) sidereal zodiac, whereas the zodiac in which one chooses to represent

the positions is irrelevant.

 

When a spatial relationship (the representation of position in the tropical

or in a sidereal zodiac) is considered in isolation of the corresponding

time relationship (using tropical or sidereal time units), we see the

practice among some siderealists of calculating secondary and tertiary

progressions without the " bija " correction, which is equivalent to working

with tropical measurements while representing the results in the sidereal

zodiac.

 

This is not a sidereal but a tropical calculation, and in order to be

consistent one would need also to calculate the time of transits tropically.

 

Because in the calculation of transits no time-transformations are

necessary, i.e., the relationship between time units is 1:1, only the

spatial relationships are considered. However, one becomes aware of the

time dimension in transits when comparing the difference in time between a

tropical and a sidereal transit. This difference is a good illustration of

how space and time are always together and inseparable.

 

Another illustration of an inconsistent practice is when tropical

astrologers use precession-corrected solar returns (the concept of " return "

is a seemingly time-based concept), but keep calculating transits in a

tropical-only reference frame (transits having the semblance of merely

spatial relationships).

 

I suggest that these inconsistencies happen mainly for 2 reasons.

 

First is the habit of astrologers of conceiving things spatially --in this

case, as a simple displacement of position in longitude (the Ayanamsa)

representing the traditional, simplified application of precession--

instead of dynamically, i.e., as a change in the space *and* time system of

reference required by a rigorous application of the dynamics of precession.

This idea of time is the essence of precession, and not the seemingly

spatial-only relationships or " displacements " with which one associates

shifting from a sidereal to a tropical (or viceversa) reference frame.

 

There is tendency to pay attention only to the spatial relationships or

measurements, forgetting that space and time are always related and

inseparable. The proof of this is than in sidereal practice, it is often

assumed that the only thing needed is a " horizontal " displacement of

longitude with respect to the tropical position (the spatial emphasis),

leaving aside the displacements in a-) latitude, b-) right ascension, and

c-) declination.

 

Second, the word " sidereal " is not understood in its astronomical sense,

i.e., as a reference frame " fixed " in time and space, but in its

astrological sense, i.e., representing zodiacal longitudes in a

traditional, historical, " sidereal zodiac " based solely (and artificially)

on an approximate formula of precession in longitude.

 

These inconsistencies would disappear completely if:

 

- the word " sidereal " were associated with the reference frame and not with

a particular traditional sidereal zodiac

 

- sidereal time units were used with sidereal positions, tropical time

units with tropical positions

 

- rigorous precessional corrections to all coordinates were used instead of

the artificially simplified ones

 

- the sidereal zero point were understood in space as well as in time.

 

Juan