conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
For the reasons that you stated in your comment, or for more?
Random Thoughts
- Thread starter david starling
- Start date
For the reasons that you stated in your comment, or for more?
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Astrologers with a modern persuasion will not ignore that Uranus conjunct ascendant that he has.
For a lot of reasons which I did not want to get into, that is why I deleted it. For example I now think it is inappropriate to argue about Hellenistic ayanamshas, even though I was making an argument in his blog and just few months ago on the forum. I read ''Ptolemy in Perspective'' by Alexander Jones, it cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had on the subject. Basically, you can find any inaccurate degree list as proof of your ''ayanamsa''.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Modernist astrologers
would not ignore those asteroids conjunct ascendant either
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Detriment and Fall
'....As in taking the Fortitudes of the Planets, great care ought to be had,
so their Debilities must be observed with no less care and prudence;
wherein I advise you to
beware of the Effects or Influence
of a Planet when he is in Detriment
rather than when he is in Fall.
For a Planet in his Detriment
is like a person cast out of all his Estate
without hopes of Recovery,
whereas
the Fall shows but a present subjection unto a misfortune
with hopes of Recovery.
(William Lilly, 'Choice Astrological Aphorisms'
Merlini Anglici Ephemeris, 1676)
If a planet is situated in a sign which opposes its own
it is said to be in detriment
a word which literally means to be harmed or damaged.
Since a planet's own sign is regarded as its stronghold
it follows that
the furthest sign from this
should be viewed as its most vulnerable position.
Similarly, just as signs of exaltation are said to elevate the planetary influences
to their highest level
their opposing signs are known as signs of fall
because
here the planets suffer loss of strength
and a reduction of potency http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig4.html
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Looks like your fan Jupiter made the rounds
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Saying this then, what is your view on the Alderbaran ayanamsha? Why adhere to it still?
Scholars have compiled all Babylonian sources and concluded that Aldebaran 15 is the closest approximation of most of them. Since the Hellenistic astrologers had only one zodiac, sidereal in nature with theoretically fixed equinoxes and solstices, it is clear they are trying to follow the ''Chaldeans''. They used the same zodiac, called System B. India did not have horoscopic astrology at the time.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Modernist astrologers
would not ignore those asteroids conjunct ascendant either
Quite a few of them would
''Aries 8° is in fact a legitimate Babylonian norming point for the vernal equinox in a zodiac in which degrees are not counted from the vernal point, but from sidereally fixed zodiacal signs beginning with Aries (“The Hired Man” in the Babylonian zodiac). The norm 8 Aries as the vernal point underlies many Hellenistic astrological texts and continued in use throughout late antiquity'' - Rochberg, F. (2010). In the path of the moon: Babylonian celestial divination and its legacy (Vol. 6). Brill.
''Not only is the Babylonian origin of the zodiac assured on the basis of cuneiform documentation, but, as Neugebauer has demonstrated from the deviation (≈5°) between modern longitudes and those given in Greek horoscopes, the astrological literature of the hellenistic and Roman period continued to use the norming point of the Babylonian zodiac (Aries 8° or 10°). - ibid.
This most useful method of comparing ancient and modern data was suggested to me by J.P. Britton. Babylonian (sidereal) longitudes may accordingly be compared against modern computed (tropical) longitudes by means of a correction factor which takes into account the constant of precession and the date of the data to be compared. Therefore, λ Babylonian = λ tropical + ∆λ, where ∆λ = 3.08° + 1.3825° × year date number. 3.08° is the correction factor for the year 0 and 1.3825° is the constant of precession per 100 years. - ibid.
I don't think I need to explain why somebody at the time could not have used Lahiri or Raman.
''Not only is the Babylonian origin of the zodiac assured on the basis of cuneiform documentation, but, as Neugebauer has demonstrated from the deviation (≈5°) between modern longitudes and those given in Greek horoscopes, the astrological literature of the hellenistic and Roman period continued to use the norming point of the Babylonian zodiac (Aries 8° or 10°). - ibid.
This most useful method of comparing ancient and modern data was suggested to me by J.P. Britton. Babylonian (sidereal) longitudes may accordingly be compared against modern computed (tropical) longitudes by means of a correction factor which takes into account the constant of precession and the date of the data to be compared. Therefore, λ Babylonian = λ tropical + ∆λ, where ∆λ = 3.08° + 1.3825° × year date number. 3.08° is the correction factor for the year 0 and 1.3825° is the constant of precession per 100 years. - ibid.
I don't think I need to explain why somebody at the time could not have used Lahiri or Raman.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Benjamin Dykes comments similarly
in his translation of
THE WORKS OF SAHL AND MASHA'ALLAH https://www.bendykes.com/product/works-of-sahl-mashaallah/
david starling
Well-known member
In my ultra-Modern 12/12 pattern, the ruler of a Sign is in its "Fall" in the next Sign (in Direct-motion). For example, Venus, as ruler of Libra, is in its Fall in Scorpio, and Exalted in Taurus. I'm sure about the Exaltations, but not necessarily about the Falls, in regard to quality of Expression. The QUALITY of Expression COULD be problematic, for a Planet in its Fall.
Anyone with personal experience concerning Venus in Scorpio? I rate it as a strong influence, for better or worse. (In my 12/12, Venus isn't in Detriment in Scorpio.)
Anyone with personal experience concerning Venus in Scorpio? I rate it as a strong influence, for better or worse. (In my 12/12, Venus isn't in Detriment in Scorpio.)
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
This makes sense in (my) 12/12, and rates study as a possible pattern, since Virgo is the opposite Sign from Pisces, where Venus is "in-Service". Maybe I should add "out-of-Service" to my lexicon.
david starling
Well-known member
This would mean, for example, that the Moon, which is "in-Service" (fortunate) in Sagittarius, would be "out-of-Service" (unfortunate) in Gemini .
Last edited:
Why would the Moon be unfortunate in Gemini?