Hi everyone,
There is so much confusion about the glyph used for 'The Black Moon
CALLED Lilith'.
I don't want to cause any disturbance regarding interpretation of the point but
Bina is right
regarding the symbolic glyph used at Astro. com. Other software may use a similar glyph for (other) versions of 'Lilith', yet the 'Lilith' (and its glyph) referred to in the additional box on Extended charts at Astro. com free charts is for, and gives the
MEAN position of the 'Black Moon called Lilith.' It is this point upon which my
years of study have been founded. In 2000, after publication of an article in which 'I fondly call it BML' (as per SU, MO, ME, VE etc.,) the letters appear to have become commonplace in useage. In the article I commented that Black Moon called Lilith appears to surface through the characteristics of its opposing sign. This is now referred to as the position of Priapus...the moon's perigee. Yet, the Moon does not have an even regular orbit. It would seem to me that MEAN BML's opposing position would be other than that of Priapus.
I am now attempting to incorporate the meaning of the TRUE position into the study and the difference between the two.
The other versions of the calculated points and their positions have been provided by
!40 in post #20.
Asteroid Lilith is listed under #1181 on astro. com. In my humble opinion, its interpretation as a physical object will be other than that for a non-physical calculated point.
For those interested, I can recommend Juan Revilla's website RIYAL, which gives an astronomical explanation of, as well as his work with the points.
I believe the original confusion arose from the French 'La Lune Noire', which was translated as 'Black' as well as 'Dark' Moon.
As I have understood it, the DARK Moon.....with no attachment of the word Lilith...refers to the hypothetical 2nd satellite of Earth supposedly observed during the 17th century. Is this the Waldemath Moon given as H58 on astro. com charts?
Many years ago I read that Ivy Goldstein's work was based upon incorrect calculations, which would therefore place a question mark upon the observations made. I have never read her work, so am unable to form an opinion.
My 2 cents.