piercethevale
Well-known member
Okay.
I have found a more complete transcript of what was said in reading 2011-3.
...here's everything I found, as follows.
"...the entity was put in command of the presentations for the associations in the land of Saad and the Golden City, and the Mongolian land. For to these three, the entity was sent to act as an interpreter of the various groups . . . [the "dots" . . . are from what is in the published transcript, they are not my doing, as I know I have become very well known to write in this manner...thank you. ptv] The interest of the entity in . . . astrology arises from that sojourn; also in [things] pertaining to buildings, geometrical signs, symbols, pictures, things that illustrate . . . for the Egyptian and the Persian records are quite varied [at variance] . . . if the entity would study astrology, do not put the signs in the Egyptian calendar, but in the Persian. For the Persian interpretations are more proficient than the Egyptian. This is not to belittle the efforts of the entity, nor of the Egyptians in those periods, but the variations in time have been corrected by the Persians, and not by the Egyptians. The Egyptian calculations are thirty degrees off. [one sign]" [Italics are either the authors or from the transcript. ptv]
So, Cayce said that the Persians calculations were more proficient than the Egyptians...but He didn't say they were of absolute correctness. As to the last sentence, the ref. to the Egyptian calculations being thirty degrees off. One has to consider if Cayce meant to what is the reality of the situation or whether He meant as to the more proficient Persian Calculations, which Cayce didn't give any certification of absolute correctness.
As Cayce had stated "Two signs off", in reading 5755-1, this along with what all I just posted and derived from reading 2011-3 results in the author Margaret Gammons summation...and gives me the same cause... for the reasons stated...to summate that the question is moot.
As Margaret wrote: "The Persian calendar and the Zodiacal signs are supposed to be the most accurate." ... Let me point out the words, "...the most...", not "the accurate", but more so. Of course that is that authors opinion. But that is what I get from reading what Cayce said as well.
Do be too disappointed though, you're on to something...I think you have a much better grasp on the Zodiacal situation than most astrologers...maybe the best grasp...I can't say....and can't say you have it fully in your hands as yet, either.
Good Sleuthing, and may God speed!
ptv
I have found a more complete transcript of what was said in reading 2011-3.
...here's everything I found, as follows.
"...the entity was put in command of the presentations for the associations in the land of Saad and the Golden City, and the Mongolian land. For to these three, the entity was sent to act as an interpreter of the various groups . . . [the "dots" . . . are from what is in the published transcript, they are not my doing, as I know I have become very well known to write in this manner...thank you. ptv] The interest of the entity in . . . astrology arises from that sojourn; also in [things] pertaining to buildings, geometrical signs, symbols, pictures, things that illustrate . . . for the Egyptian and the Persian records are quite varied [at variance] . . . if the entity would study astrology, do not put the signs in the Egyptian calendar, but in the Persian. For the Persian interpretations are more proficient than the Egyptian. This is not to belittle the efforts of the entity, nor of the Egyptians in those periods, but the variations in time have been corrected by the Persians, and not by the Egyptians. The Egyptian calculations are thirty degrees off. [one sign]" [Italics are either the authors or from the transcript. ptv]
So, Cayce said that the Persians calculations were more proficient than the Egyptians...but He didn't say they were of absolute correctness. As to the last sentence, the ref. to the Egyptian calculations being thirty degrees off. One has to consider if Cayce meant to what is the reality of the situation or whether He meant as to the more proficient Persian Calculations, which Cayce didn't give any certification of absolute correctness.
As Cayce had stated "Two signs off", in reading 5755-1, this along with what all I just posted and derived from reading 2011-3 results in the author Margaret Gammons summation...and gives me the same cause... for the reasons stated...to summate that the question is moot.
As Margaret wrote: "The Persian calendar and the Zodiacal signs are supposed to be the most accurate." ... Let me point out the words, "...the most...", not "the accurate", but more so. Of course that is that authors opinion. But that is what I get from reading what Cayce said as well.
Do be too disappointed though, you're on to something...I think you have a much better grasp on the Zodiacal situation than most astrologers...maybe the best grasp...I can't say....and can't say you have it fully in your hands as yet, either.
Good Sleuthing, and may God speed!
ptv
Last edited: