25 by Mark Noone denies the role of the visible crescent moon in Islam. It was also very important in pre-Islamic Arabia for calendrical purposes. That is where the Muslims got the idea of adopting Muharram as their first lunar month from. However, you have failed to demonstrate any any tangible connection between the event of the hijrah and this astronomical event. As I have pointed out the exact timing of the Hijrah is hopelessly confused. If it was timed to a cresecent Moon it it could have been one over several months. I think its more likely though that the Hijrah was not an elected event at all. Lets look at the historical context. While Muslims now like to present this as a planned event Muhammed was effectively fleeing for his life from Mecca. Have you have read the story of Muhammed starting off the hijrah by hiding in a cave from swarms of Meccan polytheists seeking to kill him? It seems highly unlikely this was an elected event! Mark Last edited by Mark on Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:18 am
26 by 37CENNED If that is your opinion, what was the point of your May 26, 2010 post? In which direction will the wind blow tomorrow? Quote Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:34 am
27 by Mark If that is your opinion, what was the point of your May 26, 2010 post? In which direction will the wind blow tomorrow? I put up the initial chart by Campion for discussion and debate and I have been influenced by other peoples opinions and knowledge since that time. Hence I am looking at the subject differently now. That is surely the point of a forum? If you dont want your ideas challenged or to have a debate the only option is to create your own website and control the commentary. Otherwise you will have to tolerate dissenting opinions here. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:43 am
28 by 37CENNED Mark, you wrote: [quote]"noone denies the role of the visible crescent moon in Islam. It was also very important in pre-Islamic Arabia for calendrical purposes. That is where the Muslims got the idea of adopting Muharram as their first lunar month from. However, you have failed to demonstrate any any tangible connection between the event of the hijrah and this astronomical event. As I have pointed out the exact timing of the Hijrah is hopelessly confused. If it was timed to a cresecent Moon it it could have been one over several months. I think its more likely though that the Hijrah was not an elected event at all. Lets look at the historical context. While Muslims now like to present this as a planned event Muhammed was effectively fleeing for his life from Mecca. Have you have read the story of Muhammed starting off the hijrah by hiding in a cave from swarms of Meccan polytheists seeking to kill him? It seems highly unlikely this was an elected event!"[/quote] Mark: All references and histories I have gone to, which include all I found in many days researching in a New York library, agree that the best evidence is that the move from Mecca to Medina began on the 16th. I certainly do not (and I suspect Campion also did not) suggest this was an elected event. It is surely possible for the planetary bodies in the sky to form a particular combination at the same time that an event happens without those participating in the event knowing the nature of the particular planetary combination. If the Prophet and his followers were at the time escaping from a mob, hiding in a cave, etc it is likely they did not know a new month had begun. My point is simply that the day previous to the one subsequently deemed the official start of the Hegira has more appropriate indications for being the first day of the new month. I also note that the symbolism of the conjunction of the Moon with Venus and Regulus, all of which were visible in the western sky following sunset, is appropriate for the commencement of what is considered to be the new religion. The same symbolism is appropriate for the Crescent & Star decoration that appears on the flags of so many Islamic nations, whether or not this is coincidental. To the best of my knowledge there is no clear explanation for the source of that symbolism. I mention that the February 2011 conjunction of the Sun with Mars occurred close to the Moon-Venus-Regulus placement of my suggested chart for the Hegira. Such a transit is not a frequent occurrence and it seems appropriate for the uprisings at this time in several Islamic nations. I have related the chart I propose to various key events in Islamic history, comparing it to the official chart, and believe the chart of the 15th to be a better fit than that of the 16th. You later wrote: [quote]I put up the initial chart by Campion for discussion and debate and I have been influenced by other peoples opinions and knowledge since that time. Hence I am looking at the subject differently now. That is surely the point of a forum? If you dont want your ideas challenged or to have a debate the only option is to create your own website and control the commentary. Otherwise you will have to tolerate dissenting opinions here. [/quote] Thank you for this later explanation. I had wondered at the apparent flightiness of your mind. I have no problem defending the results of my research. Dissenting views are always welcome. One further point may help your understanding. If I wish to forecast what will occur at a certain place over a particular period, say a year, one well-tried method is to cast a chart for the initial viewing of the crescent moon following the initial sun-moon conjunction of the year. Such a chart can last for the full twelve months. Thus if Muharram is the first month of the year then the moment of visibility of the initial crescent after the start of that new year is when to cast the chart from which to forecast the nature of the full year. I mention this as at some point in our discussion you argued that events of the Hegira occurred over several months, which is fine. Quote Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:27 am
29 by Juan Unfortunately I don't have time to participate in this discussion right now, but you will find some relevant historical data and references in my discussion of the chart of Islam: http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts ... islamchart and the horoscope of Muhammed: http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts ... ahoma.html Juan Quote Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:56 am
30 by Mark Hello Juan, I have taken the liberty of quoting this section from your website: In "The Book of World Horoscopes"(p.540 of the 2nd edition, 1996), Nicholas Campion says the following about the chart of Islam: THE MUSLIM ERA: The Moslem era is dated from Sunset, 16 July 622 AD, the traditional date of Mohhamed's arrival in Medina. In spite of the fact that Mohhamed in fact arrived in Medina on 2 July, the beginning of the Moslem era describes the future of Islam and Chart 465 is therefore drawn for approximate Sunset, 6.45 pm, 16 July 622 in Medina.>> This paragraph contains several errors. The date "July 16, 622" is not when the Hegira traditionally ended nor when it started. It is the beginning of the year in the Arabic Calendar in which the Hegira took place, regardless of the Hegira's exact dates. In other words, it is the equivalent of our "January 1st" of the year in which the events of the Hegira happened. This was the reasoning of Mohammed's personal collaborator 'Umar I and his advisors, when the Islamic Era and calendar were inaugurated by them in AD 638. September 24 is given by the Britannica as the date in which Mohammed arrived at Medina. One Internet source says: <<according>>. This is therefore without question the traditional date of arrival, although the most frequent statement in the sources I could consult is simply that the events of the Hijra took place in September or "early fall" of the year 622. Part of the confusion may come from the original source of the "Horoscope of Islam", the one quoted by Michael O'Reilly in the April 1991 issue of "American Astrology", where he says it is "attributed to Mark Lerner", because this chart (July 16, 622) is calculated for the coordinates of Medina (39e36/24n28), and not those of Mecca (39e48/21n27); it also says that it represents the day when Mohammed arrived at Medina. This erroneous assertion, apparently from Mark Lerner, may have mislead other astrological authors. Regarding the exact dates of the Hegira, in addition to the date of its conclusion on the arrival at Medina that we already have (September 24th, allegedly found in the Hadith) we find other dates in a very detailed account in "AR-RaheeQ Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) - Memoirs of the Noble Prophet, by Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, detail life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)". Here we find: - he left Mecca: "Safar 27th" = September 10/11 - arrived at Quba: "8th Rabi? Al-Awwal" = September 20/21 NOTE: the conversions to the Julian Calendar in this source are wrong. To make the conversions, I have used the program "Computus" by Gerhard Behrens. This substantially concurs with what I have been suggesting here. I knew this had to be the case as I had read so many Islamic online sources(citing the Hadith) which were emphatic that Hijrah began in the month of Safar. Although I am still not exactly clear what chart you are proposing for Islam from the link on the Hijrah. There do seem some variations in Islamic sources on exact dates though even accounting for the mistakes in converting to the Julian calendar. For example, despite many Islamic sources stating Muhammed arrived on the 20th September we have contrary sources like the the orthodox biography by Ibn Ishaq (trans Alfred Guillaume) which puts the arrival of Muhammed on 12 Rabi-ul-Awwal (24 September) "at high noon". The men who had been expecting him had waited every morning in the shade until there was no shade left (towards noon), and then they went inside. On that day too, "we went indoors and then the apostle arrived". The Life of Muhammed: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq?s Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by Alfred Guillaume, p.227/333 However F. A. Shamsi, in his article "The Date of Hijrah", Islamic Studies 23 (1984): 189-224, 289-323 suggests Muhammed left Mecca on 26 Safar AH 1 (9 September 622) and did not finally arrivel in Medina until 22 Rabi' I AH 1 (4 October 622) I think the major reason for this confusion in proposed dates is due to the fact that Muhammed moved to Medina in three separate stages. All three could be counted as the effective date of his arrival. Firstly he arrived in Quba, a community on the environs of Medina. A few days later he arrived in Medina for Friday prayers. Finally, nearly a fortnight later he moved from Quba to Medina. F. A. Shamsi is clearly relying on the later date. Some sources list Muhammed's arrival in Quba as his effective arrival in Medina. Since its seems likely Muhammed arrived at Quba around the 20th of September at 'high noon' , a chart could be proposed for this date and time. However, I also suggest using the day of Muhammed's arrival in the city of Medina proper for Friday prayers as a key date in Islamic history. Not least as this was not just a personal but a religious and political event for the inhabitants of Medina awaiting his arrival. We dont know when Muhammed actually came into Medina for Friday prayers. However, Islam has a long tradition of holding Friday prayers at noon. I am therefore proposing this chart as a pivotal one for the Islamic faith. In the absence of any hope of timed (or even dated) charts for other key events in the life of Muhammed this seems the closest opportunity we have to time anything in the birth of Islam. Naturally, I am open to debate and counter-arguments! Muhammed arrives in Quba (near Medina) As noted above Muhammed arrived in Quba a community on the environs of Medina on the Monday before he entered Medina proper. If one wishes one could date and time a chart for this as we know from contemporary sources that Muhammed arrived in Quba at 'at high noon'. Muhammed in Medina for Friday Prayers I have located the first chart for Medina and the second for Mecca. I suggest examining both the Quba and Friday Prayers charts to see which resonates better to major events in Islamic history. The Friday Prayers chart has some interesting fixed star elements with Spica on the MC/Sun and Regulus co-arising with the MC almuten Saturn. In the chart we have a mutable ASC and cardinal MC. However, the ASC, MC, Sun ,Moon and ASC ruler are all disposited by planets in fixed signs. Trying to link these charts to contemporary events one obvious observation is that the Tunisian protests began with Jupiter (ASC ruler) on the IC and opposing the Sun of Quba chart! Equally, though in the Friday Prayers chart we can time the Egyptian protests as Jupiter was also on the radical chart IC and opposing the Sun. The protests also broke out with Mars in Aquarius squaring the radical Mars and Venus. Those using Uranus will not have failed to notice how close it is to the radical MC/Sun in the Quba chart. Clearly, a lot more work and research is required on these charts but I hope members will find them interesting. Mark Last edited by Mark on Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:11 pm, edited 3 times in total. As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:31 pm
31 by Juan Mark wrote:Hello Juan,... This substantially concurs with what I have been suggesting here. I knew this had to be the case as I had read so many Islamic online sources(citing the Hadith) which were emphatic that Hijrah began in the month of Safar. Although I am still not exactly clear what chart you are proposing for Islam from the link on the Hijrah. Although there is some uncertainty in the exact dates when translated to the Julian calendar, there seems to be (inferred from my readings at the time I wrote the article) universal historical agreement that the Hijra took place around September or at least early Fall of A.D. 622, and some historical sources I mentioned give very specific dates. My impression is that it is probably possible to assertain the exact dates for astrological study, as you are trying to do here. But I don't feel this is necessary because we already have a very accurate reference point for the beginning of Islam in the July 16 A.D. 622 chart. This chart is sometimes called --unfortunately, confusingly, and wrongly-- "the Hijra chart", a mistake reproduced (and given authority to) by Campion and other writers. This is the chart of the zero point of the "Era of Islam", and personally, I feel it is a better reference astrological point or radix than the chart of any historical event related to the Hijra that happened that year. Why do I feel that? First, because I have worked with it extensively (in the past, I must say) and have obtained what to me are very significant, accurate results, mainly by the study of sidereal transits and synastries. I must note however, that a lot (not all) of this research involved the centaurs and will therefore be dismissed by many astrologers. And second, because in its function as a calendar it is a standard, universally accepted reference point that has structured human experience over many centuries and which was established with great care with regards to historical events (for the people involved) when it was inaugurated, and therefore carries more weight (to me) than any other alternative. I know this way of thinking is not accepted at face value by many astrologers, but it conforms to my view about how astrological reference points or "radixes" are established. Of this I would like to quote what I wrote at the end of my article on the Horoscope of Muhammed (the link is in my previous post): Astrologers tend to think that traditional dates --dates based on legend or myth, without "true" historical foundation-- are worthless. I think this is a mistake. It is the "epiphanical" and imaginative meaning we give to a date what matters, not if the date refers to a "real" physical event. There is (often) nothing physical about the time we choose to do a horary chart, for example, or about many inceptional event charts. "Events" are often purely subjective or fictional, and are non-events for other people. We have for example the date "December 25, 1 B.C. at midnight in Bethlehem", a date celebrated by all Christendom for 2 millenia, and nobody seems to think that the date is astrologically significant! I confess I have never done any serious work with this chart, probably afraid of being considered an ignorant fool by the whole astrological establishment. This unfortunately is not considered serious work. On the other hand, besides of course the "chart of Islam" made for 16 July 622 at sunset, which I think is very powerful, we have the date of Muhammed's death (8 June 632), which apparently is indisputable historically speaking. There is no need to speculate on the true date of birth for astrological purposes when we have the true date of death. Unless we are rotten materialists who think Astrology deals only with the physical or the biological, the horoscope of death often offers a better perspective of an individual?s spiritual constitution, especially, as in this case, when the real (and in this case monumental) spiritual legacy they left to the whole of mankind became effective after (or because) they died. Juan Quote Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:02 pm
32 by Mark But I don't feel this is necessary because we already have a very accurate reference point for the beginning of Islam in the July 16 A.D. 622 chart. This chart is sometimes called --unfortunately, confusingly, and wrongly-- "the Hijra chart", a mistake reproduced (and given authority to) by Campion and other writers. This is the chart of the zero point of the "Era of Islam", and personally, I feel it is a better reference astrological point or radix than the chart of any historical event related to the Hijra that happened that year. Hi Juan, My perspective is that mundane astrology is derived from two basic sources. Firstly, timed or electional events. Secondly, prior ingress, conjunction and lunation charts that precede major events. The latter are not just second best alternatives but rather chronometers that establish the basis for later event charts. I therefore dont propose the charts I have offered as in any way definitive. We dont have information for Muhammed's birth, his first revelation of the Koran, his first preaching etc. I will have a look at your work on his time of death. However, hoping one timed event chart will totally some up something like a world religion is unlikely in my view. Instead medieval astrologers looked at the chart for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction preceding the birth of Muhammed. However your choice of what I call 'The Islamic Calendar chart' doesn't strictly meet either criteria. Instead it was a date chosen in time retrospectively by Muhammed's successsor for largely practical reasons. No significant event or planetary configuration etc is tied to this chart. I suppose one can argue, as this date was later chosen as the start of Islamic history, it has a symbolic significance. Hence it could be compared to the role of the 4th of July in American consciousness even though the modern United States of America doesn't date from then. However, there is no actual incident here such as the Declaration of Independence to really base this on. I therefore remain sceptical about this kind of approach. If I was going to work with that kind of purely symbolic chart I think 37 Cenned has made a convincing case for timing the chart from when the crescent Moon became visible. In that respect s/he has improved on the work of Mark Lerner , Michael O'Reilly and Nicholas Campion although perhaps not in the way originally intended. Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:05 pm
33 by Juan Mark wrote:Your choice of chart doesn't strictly meet either criteria. Instead it was a date chosen retrospectively by Muhammed's successsor. No significant event or planetary configuration etc is tied to this chart. This is not correct. It is tied to a culturally very significant astronomical point of the lunisolar cycle (lunar visibility). This is a real astronomical event or configuration which in turn is tied to a very significant historical event (the Hegira). I suppose one might argue as this date was later chosen as the start of Islamic history it has a symbolic significance. Hence it could be compared to the role of the 4th of July in American consciousness even though the modern United States of America doesn't date from then. And "symbolical significance" makes it less astrological or traditional? Does the moment of birth of a human being have anything more than symbolical significance? As a rule --I think-- any specific moment of time that we decide to call "the birth of a nation" cannot be anything but symbolical and arbitrary. Why do we decide that the arrival of Mohammed to Medina, rather than the first visibility of the Moon just prior to it that marked the zero point of their time-reckoning, should be picked as the astrological zero point of Islam? Whatever the answer or reasoning is (as long as it is not "tradition") allows us to figure out and explore deeper the underlying assumptions we astrologers work with. If I was going to work with that kind of symbolic chart I think 37 Cenned has made a convincing case for timing the chart from when the crescent Moon became visible. In that respect s/he has improved on Campion's proposed chart although perhaps not in the way intended. - Mark As I understand, there has always been controversy among chronologists between the 15th and 16th of July, since both seem to be possible zero points when converting between Islamic and Julian dates. I provided a quote in the little appendix I wrote that explains this uncertainty and why it cannot be solved in a definitive way; I also used the method of control suggested by the author (the day of the week) to support my choice of the 16th. I think providing the quote here will be useful: The Islamic Lunar Calendar is based on the schematic rules applied in historiography (e.g. Encyclopaedia of Islam, Wuestenfeld tables etc.) with two options on the output side : Era beginning 16 July 622 (most accepted date) or 15 July 622. The difference is NOT consistently one day only (there would not have been any need for two options then) as according to the sources consulted the exact sequence of intercalary Islamic years depends on the choice of the era (first day). Anyhow, everybody aware a bit of the problems of the Islamic Lunar calendar knows that a conversion based on arithmetic or even on astronomic data has a margin of error of one day (possibly even more). (Reasons: Actual sighting of the moon in different regions by different people; overlapping of days due to the beginning of the new Islamic day at sunset vs. midnight in modern chronology). Therefore, the day of the week is always given as a convenient method of control. - Gerhard Behrens in the documentation of his software "Computus": Juan Quote Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:05 am
34 by Mark Mark wrote: Your choice of chart doesn't strictly meet either criteria. Instead it was a date chosen retrospectively by Muhammed's successsor. No significant event or planetary configuration etc is tied to this chart. Juan wrote: This is not correct. Well within the terms I defined in my post above it is correct! I refer you to my previous post. It is tied to a culturally very significant astronomical point of the lunisolar cycle (lunar visibility). This is a real astronomical event or configuration which in turn is tied to a very significant historical event (the Hegira). Of course its a real astronomical event. My point is that there is no historical event linked to the chart. In regards the astronomy naturally any chart we select will have an astronomical basis! Equally, I was also referring to 'base charts' from which significant events can be seen to develop such as conjunctions, lunations, ingresses etc. Here things are rather back to front aren't they? We have a lunation but nothing significant happens immediately after it. Instead this particular month is selected because it was the first month in the ancient Arabic Lunar calendar. If you feel the approach is valid by all means run with it. I just remain personally unconvinced. But then a lot of modern mundane astrology leaves me unimpressed. Thats probably why we see this issue so differently. And "symbolical significance" makes it less astrological or traditional? Well I dont want to be cornered into implying there is something wrong with pure symbolism! I have read Geoffrey Cornelius and his argument on the 'astrological moment'. All I was stating was that this date was selected years later. In that sense its not a timed chart or a prior configuration that could be seen to create a significant event. Its therefore not a chart in the usual way we work. Whether it is still significant or not is up to each astrologer to decide. If I recall Cornelius works with a chart displayed by the sceptics in an article against astrology and argues this can be valid. So if this chart speaks to you its your call. Why do we decide that the arrival of Mohammed to Medina, rather than the first visibility of the Moon just prior to it that marked the zero point of their time-reckoning, should be picked as the astrological zero point of Islam? I was simply exploring if a timed chart could be obtained for this. I dont hold to the view that religions, nations etc necessarily have one birth moment or chart. So there is no one astrological 'zero point' in mundane astrology as I see it. Rather multiple indicators we need to work with. I am currently looking at lunation and ingress charts for early Islam too. Whatever the answer or reasoning is (as long as it is not "tradition") allows us to figure out and explore deeper the underlying assumptions we astrologers work with. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Could you elaborate please? Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:34 am
35 by Juan Mark wrote:Well within the terms I defined in my post above it is correct! I refer you to my previous post. You mentioned two types of events to be used as astrological radix: the timed or elective historical events and the astronomical "beginnings" such as a cardinal ingress, lunation, conjunction, etc. I'm saying this date is both: it is an elected moment decided upon carefully because of its cultural, historical, and astronomical significance. True, nothing happened at that precise moment or day, but nothing happens either at the moment of a conjunction or an ingress, and in the case of the July 16 (or 15) chart, we have something peculiar that separates it from the way we use conjunctions and ingresses that to me is the key to its significance: that once this date was established as zero point, everything, absolutely everything from then on, is tied to it. In other words, to me, it doesn't matter that the date was established 16 years later in A.D. 638 out of convenience, what matters is that it became a universal, mathematical (chronological in this case) reference frame. Two things I see are implicit in our differing views: from a general perspective the concept --or rather our underlying assumptions-- of what constitutes a valid traditional, canonical, conventional, astrological zero point or "radix", and from a more particular perspective whether an after-the-fact calendrical event has or should be given enough astrological significance or weight to be used as "radix". This was discussed (from another angle) recently by Ed Falis in the "Primary Directions" thread, and I am only stretching the concept a little bit: essentially, the zero point of a calendar is a mere arbitrary convention, but so is any other zero point used in Astrology, such as the zero point of the zodiac, or a cardinal ingress, or the use of the instant of birth of a person or of anything else as the reference point for the whole of a life --which is an extreme example of arbitrariness that lies at the very heart of Astrology. Astronomical events or fiducials used as zero points contain a kind of necessity in astrological terms: Astrology is supposed to be about astronomical events, but these astronomical events or fiducials must always be ASSIGNED to events in our lives by means of a mental process that has nothing to do with Astronomy and is all about metaphors and symbolization. The choice of the moment of birth as the reference point from which to examine the rest of the newborn's life is an example of this symbolization. Why do we choose the beginning instead of the middle or the end as points of reference? the answer is: underlying mental and cultural assumptions. These arbitrary "zero points" are always justified in one way or another, but once established, this justification or reasons behind them are secondary, what matters astrologically is that they (can or can't) become the basis of our analytical reference frames. Of course its a real astronomical event. My point is that there is no historical event linked to the chart. You can say the same of every chart of an astronomical event, such as ingresses and lunations In regards the astronomy naturally any chart we select will have an astronomical basis! Equally, I was also referring to 'base charts' from which significant events can be seen to develop such as conjunctions, lunations, ingresses etc. Here things are rather back to front aren't they? We have a lunation but nothing significant happens immediately after it. Instead this particular month is selected because it was the first month in the ancient Arabic Lunar calendar. Lunations or ingresses, if we are to follow traditional astrological usage, refer only to events until the next lunation or equivalent ingress, and are of limited scope in time. This is not what the "chart of Islam" is about. We are talking of the chart of an event (cultural, historical, and astronomical, incarnated in the Islamic calendar) that happened only once and became the historical reference point or frame from which all Muslims look at the world. Like you, I don't believe that nations have only one absolute "birth moment", and one wonders why such an ancient chart from A.D. 622 could illuminate events happening throughout the many and varied Islamic countries today. Is this chart still valid today? Is it useful? Ten years ago, when I studied it extensively, I concluded that it is very valid and powerful even today. I have not dealt with it for a number of years now. All I was stating was that this date was selected years later. In that sense its not a timed chart or a prior configuration that could be seen to create a significant event. Its therefore not a chart in the usual way we work. I don't think the notion you describe here is "the usual way we [all] work". Charts do not create significant events, they just screen them, we use them as analytical tools or reference frames. I think this is how we all work, regardless of the theoretoical assumptions we may have or don't have. As I see it the Chart of Islam (or of any nation for that matter) is not the chart of the Hegira or of specific events that happened around the time the chart was made. This is why it is not necessary or even desirable that it be the chart of one of those specific events. It is something more universal and transcendental, it extends very far beyond the events of the time. How much does a national chart extend in time? I think this is something we have to explore empirically in each case. Can a chart of A.D. 622 be "alive" and shed light on events of today? I was simply exploring if a timed chart could be obtained for this. I dont hold to the view that religions, nations etc necessarily have one birth moment or chart. So there is no one astrological 'zero point' in mundane astrology as I see it. Rather multiple indicators we need to work with. Yes. I agree. But here we are seeing a "zero point" that is of a different nature: it is not the result of a personal interpretation or way of seeing things, it is not a subjective matter or decision, but an absolute, unrepeatable, universally accepted and universally used unique zero point. This, I think, is its special value. Whatever the answer or reasoning is (as long as it is not "tradition") allows us to figure out and explore deeper the underlying assumptions we astrologers work with. Not sure what you are trying to say here. Could you elaborate please? Mark I elaborated this point a little in previous paragraphs (I hope). Juan Quote Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:24 am
36 by 37CENNED Mark: In your Feb 13 note to Juan, after dismissing the validity of the initial sighting of the new lunar crescent?methodology that both he and I use?as a significant moment for the start of a new month or year, you say that you are ?currently looking at lunation and ingress charts for early Islam too.? If so you should be aware that Rumen Kolev in his Babylonian Astrology & Astronomy (2000) writes ?In Tetrabiblos book 1, chapter 8, Ptolemy describes the temperament and influences of the Moon in her different phases. Unfortunately the word ??????? meaning ?rise? or ?appearance? is translated as New Moon in many translations (e.g. Robbins, page 45). It should be New Crescent. Cardan in his commentary to Tetrabiblos translates it correctly as ?oriens? (rise).? As a result of this common mistranslation astrologers have over the centuries erroneously believed lunation charts should be calculated for the moment of the conjunction of the luminaries. Except at the solar eclipse, the Moon is invisible at the moment of the conjunction. Which lunation charts do you intend looking at, Mark? As confirmation of Kolev, please note that: David Brown in his Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology (2000) tells us that the earliest identified astrological text at the time (not to be superseded for another 50 years) ?was published by the Russian assyriologist Woldemar Shilejko in 1927 (in the Russian journal Doklady Akademi Nauk, SSSR). The text contains predictions based on the state of the sky on the day when the crescent moon just becomes visible, at the beginning of the New Year.? The ?1927? Dr Brown quotes may be a typo as I believe the initial issue of Doklady Akademi Nauk did not appear until 1933. That does not however nullify his description of the content of the early text. Cheers Quote Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:35 am