31
I respectfully submit, Martin and Varuna, and I don't mean this sarcastically, that the houses are wildly overemphasized in Indian astrology at the expense of planet combinations and that nakhshatras, dasas and bhuktis have extremely limited value for precision work. They are far too general and thus non-specific with respect to time and place. They constitute the greatest liability in any head-to-head competition between Eastern and Western sidereal astrology. I didn't bring up the matter, however, to assert something that would equate to "denominational superiority," because I have great respect for Indian astrology. Rather there are some people on this forum who never miss an opportunity to disparage the Fagan-Allen school and ayanamaha, usually subtly but nevertheless obviously. I for one, won't take that lying down and had to respond. Furthermore, I would argue that only a collision with another massive body and/or changes to the polar moment of inertia of our molten core could substantially change the rate of precession (and thus the ayanamsha). The changes to the rate of precession over the last century have amounted to, I'm pretty sure, hundreths of a second of arc and that over a period of many years.
Ken Bowser

32
I actually agree (to some extent) with several points you make, Ken, though I would state them less emphatically. I do think that houses are somewhat (not 'wildly') overemphasized in Indian astrology. I also agree that dashas are not exactly precision tools, though I would not call them 'extremely limited' in value -- and sometimes it is the broader picture one wants, or at least I do.

But I was a little surprised to see you state that dashas are imprecise and a 'great liability', since you had previously said that:
in my experience, a new dasa (with Fagan-Allen) makes one's circumstances turn on a dime.
My own comments on the dasha issue were motivated by the fact that I had had the opposite experience.

As it happens, I myself do not chiefly do Indian-style astrology, and prefer directions and revolutions to dashas. If pressed to put a label on my practice, I would call it medieval Perso-Arabic -- which of course includes Hellenistic, Byzantine and Indian elements. So a little bit of everything, except 'modern' and 'western'. ;)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

33
I mean turn on a dime in a broad sense the way you do, Martin, i.e.shortly upon the change of dasa, within a few days or a week; just not weeks or months, but I maintain from experience, not pre-judgment that Indian astrology doesn't hold up for precision work with respect to time or place and I gave a good example of it with the Indian Ocean earthquake. An event so big should be staring the astrologer in the face if his methods are invested with merit.

I don't back off my description of houses and house rulers being wildly over-emphasized, especially the supposed unerring goodness of the 5th and the 9th versus the invideous natures of the 8th and 12th. I don't maintain that the positive and negative natures of those houses are without merit. I think they're over-emphasized. In fairness I have found, to my surprise that benefics that rule whole sign angle houses act like malefics. That is impressive because it's unexpected and proves that some of the classic Indian doctrine holds up. When I say that I value Indian astrology, it's not a polite euphemism for the contrary position. I find that it has merit. I find that western sidereal has more.
Ken Bowser

34
You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, though I would point out that phrases like 'the supposed unerring goodness of the 5th and the 9th' really are straw men even when speaking of Indian astrology. For the record, I for one would not expect any dasha system or method of direction, etc, necessarily to give marked results within a few days to a week. That sort of precision is what transits are for, in my view.

I have no opinion on the prediction of earthquakes or other aspects of mundane astrology; I haven't studied them.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

Arc of precession and Alpha Stars of Constellations

36
Good morning,

So-called 'sidereal' but equal sign schools of astrology are, at best, only approximately sidereal because the equal signs are - in most proposed arcs of precession (why unnecessarily use foreign language words?) - nearer the unequal astronomic constellations than a tropical equal sign zodiac.

If one wants real sidereal, then one should investigate the books by e. g. Maria Thun and Dr. med. Editha Torsson who both work(ed) astrologically with the real unequal astronomic constellations.

Within the restricted framework of 'sidereal' equal signs, there is one (and only one as far as i can see) solution that includes each and all of the twelve Alpha constellational stars in the respective equal signs bearing the same names. It has a corridor of about 40' of ecliptical arc and puts Alpha Pisces (Alrisha) in the last degree of the sign of Pisces, Aldebaran and Antares in the 10th degrees of the equal signs of Taurus and Scorpius, Regulus in the 1st degree of Leo and Spica at about 24 Libra. This solution is very similar to the tropical zodiac of Hipparkhos, about 150 BCE.

Best regards,

lihin
Last edited by lihin on Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Non esse nihil non est.

Lunar mansions, agriculture

38
Good evening,

Of course one finds in equal lunar mansions, 27 or 28, a similar issue as with zodiacal signs. The stars the mansions are named after are not equally spaced from each other in terms of ecliptical longitude. To keep things simple let us exclude considerations of latitude, at least for the time being.

One can find a list of unequal Arabic lunar mansions for example in Christopher Warnock's "Mansions of the Moon". Several of Maria Thun's (deceased 2012) books have been translated into English and are in print. Dr. med. Editha Torsson has published one book in German that is in print.

Unequal signs and mansions do not fit into a harmonic concept of astrology. However, they DO fit with resonance and with Dr. Percy Seymour's theories. Humans are generally deeply attached to order and symmetry and find it uncomfortable, even threatening to consider chaos and asymmetry on a equal footing.

The shift of probably prehistoric astrologers from unequal to equal signs and mansions is in my humble opinion related to the introduction of agriculture and domestication of animals into human society during the late stone age. Celestial phenomena had to be adapted to time-keeping in ever smaller units, requiring equal divisions. Concurrently, constellations related to hunting and gathering were pushed away from the ecliptic, their Goddesses and Gods removed from rulership of the zodiacal constellations. Some of the older attributions can be found in Manilius.

The result was an explosive proliferation of our species, estimated from about 5 mio. to 300 mio. In my view these developments mirrored the descent of the Ages, the degeneration of mankind who became unable and unwilling to dwell with stable population in Gaia's natural environment, the forest. Even today, few can imagine hunters and gatherers using cereals (-> Ceres) as their main food.

Many groups of 'erudites' including Western exponents of Indian astrology revel in their jargons that erect exclusive circles and barriers to communication. Occasionally there are foreign words for which there is no equivalent, e. g. use of the German word 'Gestalt' in the English language. However, such occasions are rare. It is thus high time that someone write a textbook of "Indian Astrology in Plain English", using the rich Western astrological vocabulary available and applied since ancient Greek, Roman and mediaeval Arab times.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

Which arc of precession?

40
Good morning,

Most current astrology software offers a choice of 20 or more precession factors for so-called 'sidereal' equal sign zodiacs. Even more can be found on the internet proposed by astrologers. Which, if any, are correct and why? For each proposed arc there is a corresponding date of entry into the highly renowned 'Age of Aquarius'.

Even amongst practitioners of Western 'sidereal' equal sign astrology the Fagan-Bradley arc of precession is not unanimously used.

Very few astrology software programmes offer to date the possibility to define zodiacs with unequal signs, one of them being Aur?as, Paris. Astrologers who practise using unequal, real sidereal constellations instead of signs most often apply the constellation boundaries along the ecliptic defined by the IAU in the 1930s. However, they (no exception known to date) continue Scorpius instead of introducing Ophiuchus in that segment of the ecliptic where the latter constellation has less ecliptical latitude than the former.

One might mention that the Starlight software's extensive fixed star components and delineations (developed chiefly by Ms. Bernadette Brady) are based on and refer to the real astronomic constellations.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

Re: Which arc of precession?

41
Thanks for the useful information on software. As for 'real sidereal' versus 'so-called sidereal', I think one should bear in mind that even the unequal constellations were invented/discovered by humans -- only the individual stars have actual physical existence. 'Sidereal', when used of the zodiac, means fixed in relation to the constellations from which the signs get their names, not identical with them; it is a symbolic division of the sky (in this case, of the ecliptic) just like the constellations themselves, and no more or less real.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/