Current Sign Ruler Influence On Transiting Moon Did Ancients use Tropical or Sidereal

[dr. farr]

PS: Chinese Lunar Houses are still extensively used in Chinese astrological practice; the 27 Nakshatras are still extensively used in Vedic astrology today.

The Manzils (28 Mansions of the Moon in Arabic/Islamic transitional era astrology), faded from use in European astrology during the Reformation period, and today play no role in Western astrology-neither in Modern nor Traditional approaches (these Mansions continue to play a role in Western talismanic and, to a certain extent, ceremonial magic)

 

[JUPITERASC]

Valens in his Anthologies gives several verbal descriptions of horoscopes
that are detailed enough to work out the charts.
I did work out several of these following
and somewhat modifying the dates in Neugeberger
and Van Hoesen's monograph Greek Horoscopes.
These scholars set out the problem of dating ancient horoscopes
based on the planetary positions mentioned in ancient texts and archaeological findings.
They assumed a tropical zodiac, which worked well for their dating methods.
I forget whether this was the Julian calendar, but I believe so.
I used whatever Astrodienst used for ancient times.

Some of the other ancient authors don't mention the tropical/sidereal problem
and didn't publish any horoscopes.
For the ones that did, you could probably find them
dated in Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's Greek Horoscopes,
and work out the charts from them.

Valens in fact provides more than one hundred natal charts of his clients
Valens clearly was a practicing astrologer

Both Ptolemy and Valens used the tropical zodiac.

That's debateable
i.e.

QUOTE

'....The early Hellenistic astrologers most likely used a sidereal zodiac
so I experimented with several ayanasmas
and came up with the following chart
which corresponds with Valens description.
Note that he was born just after sunset
on a Sun day during a Sun hour, the first hour of the night......'
Anthony Louis blog https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/the-birth-chart-of-vettius-valens/


This chart is cast in the sidereal zodiac (Raman ayanasma)
for 8 February 120 CE at 6:27 PM LMT in Antakya, Turkey.
The chart data is the same as given by Valens in his Anthology:

• Sun and Mercury in Aquarius
• Moon in Scorpio
• Saturn in Cancer
• Jupiter in Libra
• Venus in Capricorn (Venus would be in Aquarius in the tropical zodiac and in the sidereal zodiac with a different ayanasma.)
• Mars and Ascendant in Virgo

 

[muchacho]

Valens in fact provides more than one hundred natal charts of his clients
Valens clearly was a practicing astrologer

That's debateable
i.e.

QUOTE

'....The early Hellenistic astrologers most likely used a sidereal zodiac
so I experimented with several ayanasmas
and came up with the following chart
which corresponds with Valens description.
Note that he was born just after sunset
on a Sun day during a Sun hour, the first hour of the night......'
Anthony Louis blog https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2017/10/01/the-birth-chart-of-vettius-valens/


This chart is cast in the sidereal zodiac (Raman ayanasma)
for 8 February 120 CE at 6:27 PM LMT in Antakya, Turkey.
The chart data is the same as given by Valens in his Anthology:

• Sun and Mercury in Aquarius
• Moon in Scorpio
• Saturn in Cancer
• Jupiter in Libra
• Venus in Capricorn (Venus would be in Aquarius in the tropical zodiac and in the sidereal zodiac with a different ayanasma.)
• Mars and Ascendant in Virgo

JA, that's interesting. Dorotheus has about a dozen charts in his book. So after reading your post I've just tested it with his first chart. And it didn't work with tropical, however, it did work with sidereal (Raman again, not Lahiri)! I've got April 12, 268 BC as the exact date. The best guess Pingree could provide in the appendix was May 2, 29 AD (with Mars in the wrong sign!). So yeah, sidereal seems to be the original thing, not tropical.

 

[dr. farr]

In my many experiments over the decades with sidereal, I have found Raman's much more frequently accurate than Lahiri; in fact I have come to consider Lahiri quite misleading, and have dropped it in my experiments over the past several years.

 

[JUPITERASC]

In my many experiments over the decades with sidereal
I have found Raman's much more frequently accurate than Lahiri
in fact I have come to consider Lahiri quite misleading
and have dropped it in my experiments over the past several years.

Thanks for your validation of Raman being more frequently accurate than Lahiri dr. farr

 

[david starling]

What Ayanamsa are you recommending? And, by "Sidereal" are you referring to 12 equal Signs, or 12 unequal length Constellations?

 

[david starling]

There is an interesting connection between the order of the Tropical Elements, and the formation of the Earth as a habitat for lifeforms as we know them: First, a fiery ball of molten lava (Cardinal-Fire) then a hardening crust (Fixed-Earth), then, a chaotic atmosphere (Mutable-Air), containing water vapor, which finally condensed, and rained down, covering the Earth with oceans (Cardinal-Water). Fits the Tropical sequence. I actually was unaware that Ancient Siderealism had Elements associated with the Constellations. I thought that was an addition of Modern Siderealists (like Fagan-Bradley).

 

[muchacho]

David, here's a list of 'popular' Ayanamsas (offset value for Jan 1, 2017):

Tropical 0° 00' 00.00" 0
Sassanian 20° 13' 49.68" 20.230467
Usha-Shashi 20° 17' 42.17" 20.295047
Hipparchos 20° 29' 7.07" 20.485297
Raman 22° 38' 54.7" 22.648528
Yukteshwar 22° 42' 58.71" 22.716308
Surya Siddhanta 22° 45' 56.49" 22.765692
Pushya-Paksha (at 16° Cancer) 22° 57' 34.95" 22.959708
Rohini-Paksha (Aldebaran) 23° 21' 36.87" 23.360242
Krishnamurti 23° 59' 52.71" 23.997975
Lahiri (True Lahiri) 24° 4' 43.21" 24.078669
Lahiri (Traditional) 24° 5' 40.42" 24.094561
Chandra Hari 24° 49' 17.01" 24.821392
Fagan-Bradly (Babylonian) 24° 58' 40.5" 24.977917
Aldebaran (at 15° Taurus) 24° 59' 48.97" 24.996936
Galactic Center (at 0° Sagittarius) 27° 5' 25.65" 27.090458
Deluce 28° 2' 49.69" 28.047136
Djwhal Khul (Theosophic Society) 28° 35' 49.86" 28.597183

 

[muchacho]

In my many experiments over the decades with sidereal, I have found Raman's much more frequently accurate than Lahiri; in fact I have come to consider Lahiri quite misleading, and have dropped it in my experiments over the past several years.

In a way, Lahiri's value is conjecture. According to Mercier, Lahiri went with Dikshit's conclusions who thought the reference star has to be either Revati or Chitra. But since Revati is so faint and therefore difficult to observe, Dikshit concluded that no one could have actually used it. And so he chose Chitra, which according to one later version of the Surya Siddhanta was placed at 180 degrees longitude, i.e. exactly opposite of zero degrees Aries. But as far as I know, Raman's Ayanamsa is not based on any actual star. So the question, which star to use as reference, may actually be misconceived. Gil Brand, whose Ayanamsa is very close to Raman and basically identical with Yukteshwar, uses the galactic center as reference point (based on golden section calculations).

 

[david starling]

It's like opening a combination lock! You turn the dial until it clicks for you. Muchacho, which one has given you the best results?
Also, for J.A., what Ayanamsa does it appear that Valens was using?

 

[JUPITERASC]

It's like opening a combination lock!
You turn the dial until it clicks for you.
Muchacho, which one has given you the best results?

Also, for J.A., what Ayanamsa does it appear that Valens was using?

Read Valens ANTHOLOGY FREE at http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf
and decide for yourself

 

[dr. farr]

And, by "Sidereal" are you referring to 12 equal Signs, or 12 unequal length Constellations?

The discussion seems to be about using the 12 equal signs, which is the basis of practice in both Vedic and Western sidereal astrology.

 

[JUPITERASC]

The discussion seems to be about using the 12 equal signs, which is the basis of practice
in both Vedic and Western sidereal astrology.

That's the basis and then Hellenistic Astrologers use timing techniques
incorporating the THE RISING TIMES OF THE SIGNS

 

[dr. farr]

Historical Note:
The Raman was was originally based on the researches of Prof. Whitney and his associates at Yale University, during the 1890's, into the history and "chronology" of the constellations; these results were published around 1898, and were briefly mentioned in Allen's "Star Names" book (1898); Whitney used the stars of the constellation Aries vis a vis the vernal equinox in coming to his conclusion; the date determined by Whitney et al, was used as the ayanamsa by Raman and many of the Vedic astrologers of India, for several decades after the turn of the 20th century (Lahiri later largely replaced Raman and became the "official", government-approved, ayanamsa of India)

 

[muchacho]

Muchacho, which one has given you the best results?

In terms of predictions, it's not really conclusive. I've tested it and posted some early results here. But predictive astrology is not the way to test ayanamsas anyway. Natal astrology is a much better way. And so far the ayanamsas in above list between Sassanian and Pushya-Paksha seem to work quite well. What doesn't work is Lahiri. That I'm pretty sure of now. Personally, I stick to Yukteshwar/Raman. Works best for divisional charts as well.

 

[david starling]

I'll use that in my own case, see how it works. Would you recommend my trying to learn Vedic, instead of Western? (I'm thinking of this as my spiritual Chart, with Tropical for mundane.)

 

[muchacho]

I'll use that in my own case, see how it works. Would you recommend my trying to learn Vedic, instead of Western? (I'm thinking of this as my spiritual Chart, with Tropical for mundane.)

I think it's better if you test it with someone else, someone close, someone familiar, like a sibling or a parent or a relative or good friend. If you test it with your own chart, you can't be objective.

Also, learning vedic from scratch is quite a challenge. But vedic concepts are similar to traditional western concepts. So you can try that as well. What probably won't work here is modern western. Too sketchy.

 

[JUPITERASC]

There is an interesting connection between the order of the Tropical Elements, and the formation of the Earth as a habitat for lifeforms as we know them: First, a fiery ball of molten lava (Cardinal-Fire) then a hardening crust (Fixed-Earth), then, a chaotic atmosphere (Mutable-Air), containing water vapor, which finally condensed, and rained down, covering the Earth with oceans (Cardinal-Water). Fits the Tropical sequence. I actually was unaware that Ancient Siderealism had Elements associated with the Constellations. I thought that was an addition of Modern Siderealists (like Fagan-Bradley).

Ancient astrologers visually observed their local skies

I have to say that the story of tropical vedic astrology seems to be full of irony. Dicara got this idea from Ernst Wilhelm. Wilhelm wrote an article in 2012 about The Mystery of the Zodiac where he explains these ideas. The evidence he presents is supposed to be textual. His main source is the Surya Siddhanta. However, if you actually read the article you'll see that Wilhelm is presenting a lot more points in favor of a sidereal zodiac than a tropical zodiac. As he has to concede several times in his article: "Surya Siddhanta does not, unfortunately, specifically state whether tropical or sidereal rasis are to be used for erecting a horoscope." There are also some logical and historical errors in his article. I didn't find it well researched and very self-contradictory.

OTOH, Gil Brand, in his article Nature of the Sidereal Zodiac says that
"...the writings of famous Hellenistic and Arabic authors like Vettius Valens, Abu Masar and others
definitely point to the fact that they understood the zodiac as being sidereal.
Abraham Ibn Ezra (12th century) clearly stated that
the tropical zodiac is to be used for astronomical calculations,
whereas the sidereal zodiac is to be used for astrological delineations."

 

[david starling]

I think it's better if you test it with someone else, someone close, someone familiar, like a sibling or a parent or a relative or good friend. If you test it with your own chart, you can't be objective.

Also, learning vedic from scratch is quite a challenge. But vedic concepts are similar to traditional western concepts. So you can try that as well. What probably won't work here is modern western. Too sketchy.

Vedic seems to be tied to the Hindu religion. Which is fine--I'm already fairly familiar with it, and know people who adhere to it. I'm usually a quick study, if the subject interests me enough. The Hindu words are a bit strange, but once I know what they mean, should be fine. With this Ayanamsa, I'll still be Pisces Sun.

 

[david starling]

Ancient astrologers visually observed their local skies

So, are you saying ALL practicing ancient Astrologers were using Sidereal for Chart readings? No exceptions?