|Sent on:||Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:07 AM|
Liz Greene says there is no one true astrology with a capital “A”.
That’s experience speaking. ?However, it’s important to also admit fields of study can rise to the level of science. Metaphysics does not rise to science when the underlying physics isn’t kept current. This is why it is important for metaphysicians to keep an eye on Scientific American. Astrology does not rise to science when an Aries is not an Aries. Compare that to the reliability of names in the Periodic Chart and perhaps Paleozoology and Paleobiology, for example the degree to which we distinguish a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis from a Homo sapiens sapiens. Even artists and lovers know a rose by any name: the qualities do not change. The naming problem that we’ve been discussing falls below the standards not only of scientists but liberal artists and romantics too.
As a responsible person, one wishes to get people astrologically to objective self-knowledge not a delusion of suggestion. So there is an attraction to science. This statement scares people away from astrology. I’m not the only one who has experienced the haughty isolating social response from people, “You believe in astrology, eh” with dismissive facial expressions. So, here’s a statement that scares me away from Vedic astrology: orthodox schools of Vedic astrology reject modern astronomy ?Will we be able to sit with scientists and those who have time for science and nothing less? Will we be able to sit with more new clients?
I hadn’t used the term ayanamsa before let alone know the different ones there are. Put “What is Lahiri Ayanamsa?” in www.bing.com and one result is this:
“In Vedic astrology the right choise of Ayanamsa is of the outmost importance, and it is my experience that Lahiri's Chaitra-paksha-ayanamsa or Spica-based Ayanamsa is very precise. I use it all the time, but earlier I used the KP-Ayanamsa. The different between Lahiri and the KP-Ayanamsa is only 6 minutes of arch. But I never really found out which one of these two Ayanamsas were the best because the KP-Ayanamsa seemed more precise for Vimsottary Dasa, while Lahiri seems to be precise to the very minute when I judge the Navamsa-chart. This is why I prefer Lahiri. [No mention of Fagan-Bradley—Western Sidereal Astrology, not Vedic.]
Ayanamsa is the Sanskrit term in Indian astronomy for the amount of precession. In astrology, this is the longitudinal difference between the Tropical (Sayana) and Sidereal (Nirayana) zodiacs. The ayanamsa is defined as the angle by which the sidereal ecliptic longitude of a celestial body is less than its tropical ecliptic longitude. The ayanamsa is mostly assumed to be close to be 24? today, according to N. C. Lahiri 23.85? as of 2000. This value would correspond to a coincidence of the sidereal with the tropical zodiac in or near the year 293 AD, roughly compatible with the assumption that the tradition of the tropical zodiac as current in Western astrology was fixed by Ptolemy in the 3rd century.
Question about Kirk’s question,“Who made the decision to divide the sky into equal 30 degree segments, and what is the rationale?”
and about the statements,
There are many systems of house division – ways of artificially dividing up the space surrounding the Earth. The most common was devised by Placidus in c. 1688, which is based on the time taken for each degree of the ecliptic to moe from Ascendant to Midheaven. But this system becomes worthlss when dealing with births in extreme northern latitudes, for it becomes impossible to calculate a rising degree.
The question is this. If a person is born in the United States, excluding Alaska, can they use Placidus?
Wrapping up, it seems the natal chart has this rhyme and reason.
The center of the chart could contain a circle with birth date including time and place. This is the place where the laser beam of life touched the holographic paper of reality (Earth is a dot on that paper) to create an individual which is a highly sophisticated hologram.
The pie wedges are our angles of view as we look at the volume of space from different angles.
The outer circle/wheel has section names of what was beyond the sky when they were born. 1) People’s outlook are not the same. One person’s look to the right could show an ASC of Sagittarius, another person’s look to the right could show Pisces, another person’s look to the right could show Scorpio. 2) the 24 degree difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs. 3) The angle of peripheral vision could be equal houses or angles of different measurements of degree, houses that are not equal.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kirk Kahn
To: [address removed]
Sent: 12/30/2009 2:33:18 AM
Subject: Re: [astrology-25] Link to information about Sidereal and Tropicaldifferences
You state that the tropical zodiac is arbitrary, but I will show you why the sidereal zodiac is just as arbitrary, if not more so. I am not trying to defend either zodiac. I just want to illustrate the stalemate in this type of debate.
The tropical zodiac starts at the vernal equinox. This creates a fixed, inarguable position from which to start the zodiac. In fact, the tropical zodiac is the only zodiac that we can actually agree upon because of its fixed starting point. The difficulty with the sidereal zodiac lies in the question: where does Aries start? Because of the difficulty in answering this question, there is much disagreement. There are at least 10 different sidereal zodiacs in use. What makes the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa better than the Lahiri ayanamsa is arbitrary and subject to debate.
The zodiac signs don't match up with the constellations in any of the zodiacs. Who made the decision to divide the sky into equal 30 degree segments, and what is the rationale? The constellations don't actually conform to this arbitrary division. The constellation of Virgo, for example, is so big that it takes up nearly 2 zodiac signs.
Finally, the stars within the constellations are moving relative to Earth. The constellations as we know them are slowly dissolving.
I accept that the sidereal zodiac has validity, but it is not more "correct" than the tropical zodiac. Both are arbitrary.