DECANATES aka DECANS From a Traditional Perspective

That quote I do not agree with. It goes against everything Auguste Comte wrote. Astrology as not a science is still something of value, it could still be truthful.

Maybe astrology like religion does not need to be a science. Of course, it could develop into one. I still think it can.

Sceptics need to understand one obvious thing.
astrology not yet a science =/= charlatanry...

Also, some answers are better than nothing 100%. Something is better than nothing, and more is better.

Pretty sure this physicist is the same guy that said that ''psychoanalysis is not a science: it is at best a medical process, and perhaps even more like witch-doctoring''. Yes psychoanalysis is not a science by modern standards, yet has achieved much in knowledge and development in psychological research.

In a similar way it is obvious that most skeptics or scholars that attack astrology know very little about the subject (theory, history, practice). Furthermore, they realize little or downplay its value to people. Even with the current non-scientific state of astrology (explained by confirmation bias, cold reading etc.) it is still ok to admit it has positive value, like literature, religion and philosophy can have.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpLcnAIpVRA - I mean look at that machine. It was obvious that the main purpose of such machines was astrological. Are they really asking ''what was its purpose''. They do not want to admit that such invention was made primarily for astrological purposes. Because they do not realize astrology's value. My observation is that even though students are being told that astrology is not a science in a lot of lectures, everyone is discussing signs and natal charts after classes. Literature and entertainment have great value. Astrology is unique in that it tackles specific curiosities of the human mind. We do not need to be recognized as a science, but I am sure that almost every astrologer agrees that what they do is not fake, bogus, snake-oil selling or whatever the sceptical community throws at us.

petosiris said:

Obviously this does not solve the ''twins question'', but if we follow Firmicus Maternus paranatellonta, George W. Bush will have his Ascendant/rising decan in a ''full degree - Sothis'' due to the presence of Sirius rising at this parallel at the time - https://imgur.com/a/xhQye while someone with a similar chart, born during the same day is likely to not have this. This brings further differentiation between the 360000 people born each day. What I was pointing out is that we should not pick what Hephaistio or Teucer said about ''decan x'' during the 1st century for the Mediterranean region and apply it to all charts. Also equating a ''decan'' with a planet seems unreasonable to me, for the reasons I have pointed out.

Donald Trump has not only Regulus (obviously almost everywhere due to being close to the ecliptic), but also Vega co-rising, speaks ''full degree'' to me. If I would have equate with a planet, I would also take into account the colour of the star at the time. Those examples are aimed at showcasing the theory, not proving anything with two presidents. Check Hephaistio's Book I of Apotelesmatics for further intake on the colours of the stars and the decans.

Obviously such approach opens a can of worms. Why can't there be one astrology for everyone everywhere? Does Canopus or Alpha Centauri have anything to say about Rome? Can someone use the ecliptic degrees of the stars at the same time? Does that mean that the whole zodiac and bounds should be changed for every parallel?

Drop the decans and say they do not exist.

Click to expand...

I am a noob in terms of use and application of fixed stars, but petosiris, by checking Trump's place and time of birth, I can see in Stellarium that Vega was actually setting 2 minutes after his birth. Do you mean something else by co-rising?

I also have two general question about the fixed stars (anyone can answer them, they're not necessarily directed at petosiris).
1. Does it make a difference if the star is rising or has already risen?
2. How to actually tell when the influence of the star is considered to be significant? Say, I have a star that is going to rise in half an hour, is it significant or not?

Solar Flare said:

I am a noob in terms of use and application of fixed stars, but petosiris, by checking Trump's place and time of birth, I can see in Stellarium that Vega was actually setting 2 minutes after his birth. Do you mean something else by co-rising?

I also have two general question about the fixed stars (anyone can answer them, they're not necessarily directed at petosiris).
1. Does it make a difference if the star is rising or has already risen?
2. How to actually tell when the influence of the star is considered to be significant? Say, I have a star that is going to rise in half an hour, is it significant or not?

Click to expand...

I'm no expert either
Bernadette Brady INTRODUCTION TO VISUAL ASTROLOGY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c93axQQy7OU&t=54s
Bernadette Brady - Visual Astrology Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cao-fyS3Ao
part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7-sUt5d9w
part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qbi5djL1ZY&t=41s

petosiris said:

That quote I do not agree with. It goes against everything Auguste Comte wrote. Astrology as not a science is still something of value, it could still be truthful.

Maybe astrology like religion does not need to be a science. Of course, it could develop into one. I still think it can.

Sceptics need to understand one obvious thing.
astrology not yet a science =/= charlatanry...

Also, some answers are better than nothing 100%. Something is better than nothing, and more is better.

Pretty sure this physicist is the same guy that said that ''psychoanalysis is not a science: it is at best a medical process, and perhaps even more like witch-doctoring''. Yes psychoanalysis is not a science by modern standards, yet has achieved much in knowledge and development in psychological research..

Click to expand...

Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU

petosiris said:

In a similar way it is obvious that most skeptics or scholars that attack astrology know very little about the subject (theory, history, practice). Furthermore, they realize little or downplay its value to people. Even with the current non-scientific state of astrology (explained by confirmation bias, cold reading etc.) it is still ok to admit it has positive value, like literature, religion and philosophy can have.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpLcnAIpVRA - I mean look at that machine. It was obvious that the main purpose of such machines was astrological. Are they really asking ''what was its purpose''. They do not want to admit that such invention was made primarily for astrological purposes. Because they do not realize astrology's value. My observation is that even though students are being told that astrology is not a science in a lot of lectures, everyone is discussing signs and natal charts after classes. Literature and entertainment have great value. Astrology is unique in that it tackles specific curiosities of the human mind. We do not need to be recognized as a science, but I am sure that almost every astrologer agrees that what they do is not fake, bogus, snake-oil selling or whatever the sceptical community throws at us

.

Click to expand...

Ancient Babylonian Sky Watchers Invented Advanced Scientific Astronomical Calculator
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=106220

JUPITERASC said:

GOOD NEWS!!
Mathematical mystery of ancient Babylonian clay tablet solved

UNSW Sydney scientists discovered purpose of famous 3700-year old Babylonian clay tablet
revealing it is the world's oldest
and most accurate
trigonometric table
possibly used by ancient mathematical scribes
to calculate how to construct palaces and temples and build canals.

The new research
shows the Babylonians beat the Greeks
to the invention of trigonometry
- the study of triangles
- by more than 1000 years
and reveals
an ancient mathematical sophistication
that had been hidden until now.


Known as Plimpton 322
the small tablet was discovered
in the early 1900s
in what is now southern Iraq
by archaeologist, academic, diplomat and antiquities dealer Edgar Banks,
the person on whom the fictional character Indiana Jones was based.

Plimpton 322 has four columns and 15 rows of numbers written on it
in the cuneiform script of the time using a base 60, or sexagesimal, system.

Plimpton 322 has puzzled mathematicians for more than 70 years
since it was realised it contains a special pattern of numbers called Pythagorean triples
The huge mystery, until now, was its purpose
- why the ancient scribes carried out the complex task
of generating and sorting the numbers on the tablet.
Our research reveals that Plimpton 322 describes the shapes of right-angle triangles
using a novel kind of trigonometry based on ratios, not angles and circles.
It is a fascinating mathematical work that demonstrates undoubted genius.
The tablet not only contains the world's oldest trigonometric table;
it is also the only completely accurate trigonometric table
because of the very different Babylonian approach to arithmetic and geometry.
This means it has great relevance for our modern world.
Babylonian mathematics may have been out of fashion for more than 3000 years
but it has possible practical applications in surveying, computer graphics and education.
This is a rare example of the ancient world teaching us something new
said Dr Daniel Mansfield of the School of Mathematics and Statistics
in the UNSW Faculty of Science.

The new study by Dr Mansfield and UNSW Associate Professor Norman Wildberger
is published in Historia Mathematica
the official journal of the International Commission on the History of Mathematics.
A trigonometric table allows you to use one known ratio of the sides of a right-angle triangle
to determine the other two unknown ratios.

Click to expand...

3700-year old Babylonian Tablet
Confirms
Pythagoras DID NOT INVENT the Theorem Bearing His Name
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-...theorem-021581

Old Babylonian mathematics and Plimpton 322:
A new understanding of the OB tablet Plimpton 322
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L24GzTaOll0

Solar Flare said:

I am a noob in terms of use and application of fixed stars, but petosiris, by checking Trump's place and time of birth, I can see in Stellarium that Vega was actually setting 2 minutes after his birth. Do you mean something else by co-rising?

I also have two general question about the fixed stars (anyone can answer them, they're not necessarily directed at petosiris).
1. Does it make a difference if the star is rising or has already risen?
2. How to actually tell when the influence of the star is considered to be significant? Say, I have a star that is going to rise in half an hour, is it significant or not?

Click to expand...

Porphyry and modern astrologers who use ''parans'' say that fixed stars make configurations and in modern astrology (not with Porphyry and Rhetorius, this is obvious due to how hard it was to primary direct) Mercury is better when it eventually rises or culminates with Regulus at IC. Personally I think that the original paranatellonta of the decans had nothing to do with fixed star configurations, even less with mundane aspects (because parans include planets with Brady's approach).

From what I understand from the various Hellenistic sources on the decans - Hephaistio, Firmicus and Teucer (who apparently was versed in the Salmeschiniaka), the main focus was primarily the rising stars which included those on the horizon from the ''Sphaera Barbarica''.

The early Hellenistic Egyptians did use whole decan system, true (Hephaistio Book II), but there is zero evidence of them using any sort of quadrant division or anything other than a nonagesimal MC/IC (if that). So definitely no mundane configurations. However, unto your question whether the setting stars influence the first decan, the answer is absolutely yes. They make their influence on the 19th decan which in turn influences the whole chart. Truly ''everything breathes together'' as Plotinus said.

That is why you see Teucer and Hephaistio delineate a lot by just noting the rising decan - they now know the placement of all 36 decans.
That is why every Hellenistic astrologer that mentions Myriogenesis (minute delineations) speaks with the highest praises for it and the god Asclepius (one of the ''founders'' of Hellenistic astrology).

Looking at Aquarius 5 - 9 which are full degrees in Firmicus' source, I find bright stars setting and no notable rising (Luxor 300AD that has Sirius rising at the end of the first decan of Cancer), however many other degrees are ambiguous so I can't say for sure. In any case, the rising stars are the most important.

The reason I used Luxor is very interesting. Firmicus 7 - 12 (8th - 13th) degrees Cancer (Sothis, but it has Procyon as well) and available sources on the decans suggests that Sirius was rising before the 10th degree of Cancer. The first decan of Cancer is ''Sothis/Sopdet'' after all.

At Rome or Sicily at the time of Firmicus the decan is not even close. It is a couple degrees (?does that matter?) away for Alexandria/Sais in the 4th century and a bit further in the previous centuries. However these degrees could be the precise observations of an Egyptian from Upper Egypt, someone like Hephaistio would likely be seeing the same degrees in Thebes.

Compare Rome, Alexandria and Luxor between 500 BC - 500 AD to see exactly what I mean.

There is an alternative explanation for the first decan being related to Sothis - that the astrologers at Alexandria used an earlier zodiac than Fagan-Bradley and Aldebaran 15 (the one I prefer) for which I have found some indirect evidence:

''You do know what is an ordinal number. I find it ridiculous to argue with eastern pundits, consider that both Manilius and Valens agree that the Pleiades rise at 6° Taurus, something impossible in the calculations of the Persians and Indians, but a degree that is in accordance with our calculations and those of the Babylonians. And we do not use one star, but we consider all stars as reference points constantly.

Very soon this matter would be of little importance, but for your information we do currently have Aldebaran very near 15° Taurus, but this is so held.

And I am fully aware of the tropical calculations in the Anonymous, which happen to align within a degree with our zodiac by coincidence.
For Ptolemy used older star catalogues of Hipparchus and his contemporaries. While they had Aldebaran correctly at 10° Tropical Taurus, Ptolemy added the erroneous rate of precession of 1° per century, placing Aldebaran at 12° 40' Tropical Taurus in his time.

Hephaistio and the Anonymous added another 2° in their century, thus they had Aldebaran at the ordinal 15° Tropical Taurus, which was actually 18° in the Tropical zodiac in their time. Astronomy with equinoxes is more difficult than one with Sirius.

Consider how much behind their degrees are according to your zodiac, even more so than to our calculations.

Thus, only the sources of Ptolemy would be close to the degrees of the stars accepted by astronomers and astrologers today. The Greek astronomers have not been observing the skies as long as we and the Babylonians did.''

While I was a bit not-sane at the time, I was right that those degrees are quite off and could point to a general problem - all fixed star degrees are couple degrees earlier? Maybe it was not just a problem for the tropicalists, or maybe it was not a problem at all and that's how they began the zodiac (that's why I was mad that the woman suggested that the Anonymous of 379 used Krishnamurti ''accidentally'', I could not believe my eyes what she was implying with her bias).

However, I prefer the hypothesis that it was someone from Upper Egypt. As Ptolemy said ''We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." (nice Occam)

1. For me it does not, the only difference would be the distance/range. Same as with the planets.
2. That is something that is not well established in astrology. Fixed stars in general are unestablished in astrology. Robson and the Anonymous (who use ecliptical projections) are not the greatest source for this, I mean the latter appears to have a more modern and balanced approach than the previous?! This is very unfortunate for planetology, but somewhat obvious when you consider that tropical astrology has a problem with stars and constellations, especially the latter.

petosiris said:

Porphyry and modern astrologers who use ''parans''
say that fixed stars make configurations and in modern astrology (not with Porphyry and Rhetorius, this is obvious due to how hard it was to primary direct) Mercury is better when it eventually rises or culminates with Regulus at IC.
Personally I think that the original paranatellonta of the decans
had nothing to do with fixed star configurations
even less with mundane aspects
(because parans include planets with Brady's approach).

From what I understand from the various Hellenistic sources on the decans - Hephaistio, Firmicus and Teucer (who apparently was versed in the Salmeschiniaka), the main focus was primarily the rising stars which included those on the horizon from the ''Sphaera Barbarica''.

The early Hellenistic Egyptians did use whole decan system, true (Hephaistio Book II), but there is zero evidence of them using any sort of quadrant division or anything other than a nonagesimal MC/IC (if that). So definitely no mundane configurations. However, unto your question whether the setting stars influence the first decan, the answer is absolutely yes. They make their influence on the 19th decan which in turn influences the whole chart. Truly ''everything breathes together'' as Plotinus said.

That is why you see Teucer and Hephaistio delineate a lot by just noting the rising decan - they now know the placement of all 36 decans.
That is why every Hellenistic astrologer that mentions Myriogenesis (minute delineations) speaks with the highest praises for it and the god Asclepius (one of the ''founders'' of Hellenistic astrology).

Looking at Aquarius 5 - 9 which are full degrees in Firmicus' source, I find bright stars setting and no notable rising (Luxor 300AD that has Sirius rising at the end of the first decan of Cancer), however many other degrees are ambiguous so I can't say for sure. In any case, the rising stars are the most important.

The reason I used Luxor is very interesting. Firmicus 7 - 12 (8th - 13th) degrees Cancer (Sothis, but it has Procyon as well) and available sources on the decans suggests that Sirius was rising before the 10th degree of Cancer. The first decan of Cancer is ''Sothis/Sopdet'' after all.

At Rome or Sicily at the time of Firmicus the decan is not even close. It is a couple degrees (?does that matter?) away for Alexandria/Sais in the 4th century and a bit further in the previous centuries. However these degrees could be the precise observations of an Egyptian from Upper Egypt, someone like Hephaistio would likely be seeing the same degrees in Thebes.

Compare Rome, Alexandria and Luxor between 500 BC - 500 AD to see exactly what I mean.

There is an alternative explanation for the first decan being related to Sothis - that the astrologers at Alexandria used an earlier zodiac than Fagan-Bradley and Aldebaran 15 (the one I prefer) for which I have found some indirect evidence:

''You do know what is an ordinal number. I find it ridiculous to argue with eastern pundits, consider that both Manilius and Valens agree that the Pleiades rise at 6° Taurus, something impossible in the calculations of the Persians and Indians, but a degree that is in accordance with our calculations and those of the Babylonians. And we do not use one star, but we consider all stars as reference points constantly.

Very soon this matter would be of little importance, but for your information we do currently have Aldebaran very near 15° Taurus, but this is so held.

And I am fully aware of the tropical calculations in the Anonymous, which happen to align within a degree with our zodiac by coincidence.
For Ptolemy used older star catalogues of Hipparchus and his contemporaries. While they had Aldebaran correctly at 10° Tropical Taurus, Ptolemy added the erroneous rate of precession of 1° per century, placing Aldebaran at 12° 40' Tropical Taurus in his time.

Hephaistio and the Anonymous added another 2° in their century, thus they had Aldebaran at the ordinal 15° Tropical Taurus, which was actually 18° in the Tropical zodiac in their time. Astronomy with equinoxes is more difficult than one with Sirius.

Consider how much behind their degrees are according to your zodiac, even more so than to our calculations.

Thus, only the sources of Ptolemy would be close to the degrees of the stars accepted by astronomers and astrologers today. The Greek astronomers have not been observing the skies as long as we and the Babylonians did.''

While I was a bit not-sane at the time, I was right that those degrees are quite off and could point to a general problem - all fixed star degrees are couple degrees earlier? Maybe it was not just a problem for the tropicalists, or maybe it was not a problem at all and that's how they began the zodiac (that's why I was mad that the woman suggested that the Anonymous of 379 used Krishnamurti ''accidentally'', I could not believe my eyes what she was implying with her bias).

However, I prefer the hypothesis that it was someone from Upper Egypt. As Ptolemy said ''We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." (nice Occam)

1. For me it does not, the only difference would be the distance/range. Same as with the planets.
2. That is something that is not well established in astrology. Fixed stars in general are unestablished in astrology. Robson and the Anonymous (who use ecliptical projections) are not the greatest source for this, I mean the latter appears to have a more modern and balanced approach than the previous?! This is very unfortunate for planetology, but somewhat obvious when you consider that tropical astrology has a problem with stars and constellations, especially the latter.

Click to expand...

THE 36 DECANS THE PARANATELLONTA AND THE FACES
- RHETORIUS THE EGYPTIAN google books https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...LLONTA&f=false

The term "paranatellonta" is well-known in Greek astrological literature

It designates stars either rising together with the sun
or being in other conspicuous positions to it.

Tentatively, a forerunner of this conception is identified in an egyptian depiction
attested several times from the 13th century BC onwards.
There, "gods" are depicted who are defined
by their positions in regard to the sun-god.
It seems possible to connect their positions
with the typical meanings of the word paranatellonta.

Some reflections on the contribution of Egypt to hellenistic astrology are added,
including some references to the largely unpublished corpus
of demotic egyptian astrological texts http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10705808

Yes, I am familiar with Rhetorius who copies his material from Teucer the Babylonian. It looks something like this, I modified slightly a few delineations and used presumed Egyptian names instead of saying 1st decan, using faces and planets or the Greek-Egyptian mix in Hephaistio.

Cancer
Septet - public affairs, grieved about children and in youth, cheerful in old age.
Tepa-Kenmut - benefit from others, troublesome marriage.
Kenmut - smooth-tongued, grieved in youth, gladdened in old age.

Leo
Kher-Khept-Kenmut - leader, wealthy, will bury his wife first.
Ha-Djat - meanness, hardship, dangers abroad.
Pehui-Djat - meanness, hardship, dangers abroad.

Virgo
Themat-Hert - dangers, quickly become orphans.
Themat-Khert - wealthy and esteemed because of relationships, aggrieved in their parents and children.
Ustha - wealthy and esteemed because of relationships, aggrieved in their parents and children.

Libra
Bekatha - dangers in youth, gains reason by mines and discoveries.
Tepa-Khentet - rich from quadrupeds, liable to die suddenly.
Khentet-Hert - illness and tumult in youth, gladdened in old age.

Scorpio
Khentet-Khert - benefit from windfalls and notable things brought to light.
Themes-En-Khentet - dangers in youth.
Sapt-Khennu - soldier, will live many years, will bury his wife first, will be wealthy in old age.

Sagittarius
Her-Ab-Uaa - grieved about children.
Shesmu - free from pain, ending with strangers.
Kenmu - rich and held in esteem, inheritance from a woman.

Capricorn
Tepa-Semt - public affairs, grieved about children, danger in youth, fortunate in old age.
Sert - useful, helped by others.
Sasa-Sert - acute, glib-tongued, wastes his patrimony, misery in youth, gladdened in old age.

Aquarius
Kher-Khept-Sert - good and changeable, accommodating to women.
Khukhu - base and depraved in youth.
Baba - base and depraved in youth.

Pisces
Khent-Heru - worthless, involved with water, lying, liable to die suddenly.
Her-Ab-Khentu - helped by others, good marriage, grieved in their children.
Khent-Kheru - helped by others, good marriage, grieved in their children.

Aries
Qet - dangers, treacheries, fluxions.
Sasaqet - wealthy, held in esteem, liable to die suddenly.
Art - illness, misery in youth, cheerful in old age.

Taurus
Khau - wealthy and esteemed because of someone else.
Remen-Heru-An-Sah - youth full of hardship, quickly escaping dangers.
Mestcher-Sah - soldiers, steadfast, organizers, long-lived.

Gemini
Remen-Kher-Sah - not devoted in marriage, grieved about children.
A-Sah - leaders, held in esteem, not a devoted marriage.
Sah - wealthy, held in esteem, leaders, liable to die suddenly.

I will repeat again that these delineations were made somewhere in the Mediterranean 2000 years ago (probably Egypt), using co-risings and not ecliptic degrees.

In Hephaistio many delineations are similar, which suggests they were both drawing on a common source, probably the Salmeschiniaka. There is much more material in Hephaistio than in Teucer including physiognomy. It also contains critical numerological years of the gods. Do not forget that Nechepso and Petosiris had many attributed numerological treatises floating around, there are even a few in Valens (Book 3.11 is by far most interesting), using the days from the rising of Sirius.

Later astrologers do not have a single numerological technique though or at least from what I have seen. (I would not count profections or 1 year = 1 degree as numerology, although Morinus did think that profections are ''artificial''.)

JUPITERASC said:

The term "paranatellonta" is well-known in Greek astrological literature

It designates stars either rising together with the sun
or being in other conspicuous positions to it.

Tentatively, a forerunner of this conception is identified in an egyptian depiction
attested several times from the 13th century BC onwards.
There, "gods" are depicted who are defined
by their positions in regard to the sun-god.
It seems possible to connect their positions
with the typical meanings of the word paranatellonta.

Some reflections on the contribution of Egypt to hellenistic astrology are added,
including some references to the largely unpublished corpus
of demotic egyptian astrological texts [/B]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10705808[/COLOR]

Click to expand...

It actually means rising along, but not with the Sun, but over the horizon (with anything), although the original Egyptian decans were connected to both.

They used it for time-keeping for both the hours (36) and the year (360 days and 5 epagomenal). So you could say they had both ecliptic and ascendant, but there is no attested use, according to scholars, of this system being used in any kind of astrology before the Ptolemies.

Similarly, I wonder how the Babylonians had the rising times of all signs, were watching the horizon and the sky, day and night, and somehow did not think of using places.

petosiris said:

It actually means rising along, but not with the Sun, but over the horizon (with anything), although the original Egyptian decans were connected to both.

They used it for time-keeping for both the hours (36) and the year (360 days and 5 epagomenal). So you could say they had both ecliptic and ascendant,
but
there is no
attested use
according to scholars
of this system
being used
in any kind
of astrology
before
the Ptolemies.

Click to expand...

at least 90% of ancient astrological lore
has either been destroyed
or is currently being destroyed
for example Museums being bombed to destruction in Middle Eastern wars
or alternatively
has not
as yet
been translated
and/or
has not as yet been unearthed aka discovered

petosiris said:

Similarly, I wonder how the Babylonians had the rising times of all signs
were watching the horizon and the sky, day and night
and somehow did not think of using places.

Click to expand...

Quite

.







.