16
pankajdubey wrote:
damon wrote:Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north :'
[1] Sun always has a zero degree latitude so it the mercury that has to come closer.It should be something like the superior conjunction of mercury in 9 May 2000. 0349 hrs GMT
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/mercury1999.pdf

I think [2] that would be a Cazimi.
PD
[1] And this is why the quotation of Ptolemy does not help because he would accept any rate of latitude.

[2] But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16? or 17?minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes

17
johannes susato wrote:
pankajdubey wrote:
damon wrote:Hi
Latitude of Sun is 0.0.0 South,Mercury is 1,21,29 north :'
[1] Sun always has a zero degree latitude so it the mercury that has to come closer.It should be something like the superior conjunction of mercury in 9 May 2000. 0349 hrs GMT
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/ae/mercury1999.pdf

I think [2] that would be a Cazimi.
PD
[1] And this is why the quotation of Ptolemy does not help because he would accept any rate of latitude.

[2] But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16? or 17?minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes
Come to think about it, isn't it a real power to be in the Sun's heart and still be visible :)

Logic is a very strange thing.

I thought that the latitude has to be within 16 minutes, so it has to be less than 17min.

In the ephemeris, only when the latitude is less than 16 minutes do you find this additional data:

superior conj 2000 May 09 03:49 18?b49?53 0?00?53
minimum elong 2000 May 09 03:47 18?b49?39 0?00?53
behind sun begin 2000 May 08 22:37 18?b21?38
behind sun end 2000 May 09 08:57 19?b17?43
starts on 2000 May 08 and end 2000 May 09 08:57


The trick is this-
save the linked file, open in adobe pdf, then Cmd+F or Ctr+ F for "behind sun" and will be ending with all superior conjunctions with mercury latitude less than 16 min.

eg: 2002
superior conj 2002 Nov 14 04:39 21?h37?49 0?-7?-37
minimum elong 2002 Nov 14 03:43 21?h34?03 0?07?29
behind sun begin 2002 Nov 13 18:10 20?h55?53
behind sun end 2002 Nov 14 13:16 22?h12?09
If you mean something more complicated than this , then I won't get it.

PD

18
pankajdubey wrote:
johannes susato wrote: But how can a planet - in accordance with the mainstream - be called to be in the Sun's heart, when at the same time he is visibel (?!) because of his latitude being more than 16? or 17?minutes?

Is this antagonism explained by any author?

Johannes
Come to think about it, isn't it a real power to be in the Sun's heart and still be visible :)
:lala
pankajdubey wrote: I thought that the latitude has to be within 16 minutes, so it has to be less than 17min.
As you said, PD:
pankajdubey wrote: Logic is a very strange thing.
To be honest, here I do not know what you want to say.
pankajdubey wrote: In the ephemeris, only when the latitude is less than 16 minutes do you find this additional data:
superior conj 2000 May 09 03:49 18?b49?53 0?00?53
minimum elong 2000 May 09 03:47 18?b49?39 0?00?53
behind sun begin 2000 May 08 22:37 18?b21?38
behind sun end 2000 May 09 08:57 19?b17?43
starts on 2000 May 08 and end 2000 May 09 08:57


The trick is this-
save the linked file, open in adobe pdf, then Cmd+F or Ctr+ F for "behind sun" and will be ending with all superior conjunctions with mercury latitude less than 16 min.

eg: 2002
superior conj 2002 Nov 14 04:39 21?h37?49 0?-7?-37
minimum elong 2002 Nov 14 03:43 21?h34?03 0?07?29
behind sun begin 2002 Nov 13 18:10 20?h55?53
behind sun end 2002 Nov 14 13:16 22?h12?09
If you mean something more complicated than this , then I won't get it.
PD
Now you are joking because I know that you know that I do not 'mean something more complicated than this' !!!

My only point is, whether Coley is not right, when he, in his 'Key . . .', p. 96, claims:
"Cazimi is, when a Planet is in the heart of the Sun which is, when he is within 16 Minutes of his Body, in respect of Longitude and Latitude."

Johannes

20
konrad - here is a chart that conforms to what you are looking for..

perhaps some folks would like to make a comment about this chart based on their theories on cazimi, or planets out of sect in cazimi? i will reveal who this famous person is later.
fwiw - the latitude of mars is 00/51..

Image

photo sharing websites

21
james_m wrote:konrad - here is a chart that conforms to what you are looking for..

perhaps some folks would like to make a comment about this chart based on their theories on cazimi, or planets out of sect in cazimi? i will reveal who this famous person is later.
fwiw - the latitude of mars is 00/51..

Image

photo sharing websites
whatever you may say about
this person I can justify on the basis of Jupiter and Mars.
Someone whose fortunes changed after marriage? ?

23
I suspect Coley's definition of cazimi being within 16" of latitude and longitude of the sun (thankyou Johannes) came from recent observations of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the sun. Here was visual proof that a planet in the heart of the sun was visible and had the power to overcome the brilliance of the sun.

The transits occurred when the planets were retrograde, of course, and it might have seemed a bit odd that a planet only had the power to overcome the sun when it was retrograde. However, we must remember that when Coley was writing, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe was in its dying days but was never-the-less still current. As the orbits of the Moon, Mercury and Venus were within the orbit of the sun (in the earth centred cosmology) it would be expected that future transits would be seen when Mercury and Venus were direct.

Geoffrey

24
Geoffrey wrote:I suspect Coley's definition of cazimi being within 16" of latitude and longitude of the sun (thankyou Johannes) came from recent observations of the transits of Venus and Mercury across the face of the sun. Here was visual proof that a planet in the heart of the sun was visible and had the power to overcome the brilliance of the sun.

The transits occurred when the planets were retrograde, of course, and it might have seemed a bit odd that a planet only had the power to overcome the sun when it was retrograde. However, we must remember that when Coley was writing, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe was in its dying days but was never-the-less still current. As the orbits of the Moon, Mercury and Venus were within the orbit of the sun (in the earth centred cosmology) it would be expected that future transits would be seen when Mercury and Venus were direct.

Geoffrey
If this is not kept in mind then Lilly's calculation of accidental dignity scores will yield a zero(+5 for Cazimi and -5 for retrogression.) .

PD

25
Chris Brennan quotes this:
http://theastrologydictionary.com/c/cazimi/
There appears to have been some disagreement amongst some early Medieval sources about how close a planet must get to the Sun before it is considered to be ?in the heart? or cazimi:

According to Rhetorius and Sahl a planet is considered to be ?in the heart? as soon as it comes within one degree of a conjunction with the Sun.

According to al-Qabisi and Bonatti a planet is considered to be ?in the heart? as soon as it comes within 16 minutes of a conjunction with the Sun.
It seems that the earlier authors defined the concept according to the wider value of one degree, whereas most of the later Medieval and Renaissance astrologers used the tighter value of 16 minutes.
I can thicken the plot here.

If you look at the data ...behind the sun begins... behind the sun ends.
There is degree difference of longitude when the latitude differernce is less than 16 minutes.

Maybe both are correct but something got lost in translation and the latitude got confused with the longitude.

So, a neo Trad definition could be..
Cazimi starts when the planet is within a degree longitude of the Sun and its latitude is less than 16 mins on either side of the sun.(superior conjunction).


{and that is why one came out with a tan where you were expecting to be roasted alive :lala }

PD

Sun-Dance

26
Good evening,

If one astutely follows transit data, one can notice that H?lios occasionally exhibits 1 second of ecliptical latitude. He is dancing round a barycentre situated outside his circumference.

Of course, this phenomenon is not visible to unaided human sight.

Otherwise i should agree that, is the case of this thread, one has at best a 'Cazimi of longitude', not a complete one. This might be compared to partial and full eclipses, the latter much stronger than the former. However, with Herm?s' ecliptical northern latitude of 1 degree 21', this comparison would be too generous, as H?lios has a diameter of about 30' of arc. No apparent 'bodily' contact occurs.

Ptolemy himself gave the explanation why he considered ecliptical latitude for conjunctions but not for aspects in the last sentence of the text quoted above.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

27
I'm resuscitating this thread, because I'm currently working on a chart which has
Sun 1?33'46" S and Venus 1?29'22", but Venus' latitude is 1? 1'12" S, so strictly speaking this isn't cazimi. However, looking at the houses it rules, and how the realization of the topics connected with them works out, I would say that this is a strong Venus. It rules the 2d and 9th whole sign house, and is positioned in the 6th. This is a guy who went abroad, started his own small construction company, employs a few people on an on-and-off basis, and is doing really good financially.

James, if you're still around I'd love to hear what's with the chart you posted, with Mars cazimi. Latitude was too big in this case as well, so it would be interesting to know whether it is just completely combust thereby not able to realize the affairs of the houses it rules, or the opposite.
Yuki