skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Anthony Louis hypothesis about old electional chart.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course, it is Christmas, and not a good time to pursue this matter now. I also hope to pick this up again later when I have more time to explore certain points. Thank you for the reference you gave. There are various reasons why I wish we knew more about the use of the Zij al-Shabirjar tables, because it is obvious that these must have been used. And yet no modern sidereal method is able to recreate the reported results, and the few figures that we can rely upon from Al Faqih best agree with the (tropical) planetary positions recorded by Al Biruni. This is very odd to me.

I am not trying to close down any argument, BTW; but wondering why it is that when Masha'allah gives a whole series of ingress charts for great conjunctions and the accession of a long line of rulers, the planetary positions in those charts also appear to make the best correspondence to a tropical system. There is no doubt that the major influence of the astrological technique employed was Persian. I have even wondered whether there was some kind of 'dual' reference system going on, where fixed star (or maybe fixed stars and superior planet positions) were gained by sidereal reference but the Sun and inferior planet positions were derived tropically. (I don't know if this is complete nonsense, but I have noticed a pattern over many charts of the Sun position agreeing better with tropical reference whilst Saturn's position agrees better with sidereal reference). If anyone can help to make sense of this I would be very interested. Ultimately, my interest in the Baghdad chart is not to prove or disprove any zodiac, or to try to 'correct' any of the recorded positions, but to understand what the astrologers of the time made of this chart astrologically, so we can better understand what it represented to them symbolically.

I do have another point to make (about the placement of Saturn) but the full reason for my interest in this positions deserves a bigger post than I can make at the moment. For now let me say that the sidereal position of Saturn in Aries would make a lot more sense to me than its tropical placement in Taurus. But Al Faqih clearly misplaced it and Al Biruni omitted reference to it - perhaps because he could see that at some point, someone recorded its position incorrectly. David Pingree says that Al Biruni recorded it as being in the 27th degree of Aries. The reference he gave was to the English translation of Al Biruni, which I referenced and linked to earlier. So this puzzles me - where did Pingree get that position of Saturn from, because it is not in the source he referenced. I wonder whether he saw it in the original untranslated manuscript. This seems likely but unless/until it can be verified, the only recorded position of Saturn I have seen is Al Faqih's 1.40 Aries - assumed to be an erroneous record of its tropical position, in the same degree of Taurus.

Thanks for posting the chart James. I notice Al Biruni's positions are not actually given in this thread, so include them below:

Saturn: [26.40 Aries - according to Pingree*]
Jupiter: ? Sagittarius
Mars: 2.50 Gemini
Sun: 8.10 Leo
Venus: 29 Gemini
Mercury: 25.07 Cancer
Moon: 19.10 Libra

* Pingree, D., ‘The Fragments of the Works of Al-Fazārī’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 1970; p.104.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
There is no doubt that the major influence of the astrological technique employed was Persian. I have even wondered whether there was some kind of 'dual' reference system going on, where fixed star (or maybe fixed stars and superior planet positions) were gained by sidereal reference but the Sun and inferior planet positions were derived tropically. (I don't know if this is complete nonsense, but I have noticed a pattern over many charts of the Sun position agreeing better with tropical reference whilst Saturn's position agrees better with sidereal reference). If anyone can help to make sense of this I would be very interested.

Very very briefly, as time is limited: not nonsense at all, and others have noted it too, in print. A voice at the back of my head says there may be something about this in Rob Hand's translation of Masha'allah's On Reception, but I haven't the time to check. Perhaps later...
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for making that quick point Martin. I might be a while before I can get back to this topic myself - but I hope the discussion can continue to delve into various points over time. I see no rush; the chart has been around a long time!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1492
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A new wrinkle has appeared. According to B. Suryanarain Rao (B.V. Raman's grandfather), the zodiac measured from "zeta Pisces" is actually measured from xi Pisces which is termed "Reveti." Rao references Surya Siddhanta for star measurements in 560 AD. Xi Pisces is given as 359 deg 50 min. Xi Pisces is close to the ecliptic. Zeta Pisces is some degrees south near Alrisha. (knot or cord of the fishes) It seems that confusion is piled upon confusion when trying to re-create ancient zodiacs.

So far the contemporary zodiac that comes closest to Masha'allah's positions in On Reception is the Raman/Yukteswar zodiac, but that zodiac does not agree with the stars measured from xi Pisces as given in Rao's books. There seems to be little doubt that the zodiac that made its way to India had similar roots to the tables Masha'allah used for the charts in On Reception.

To be further edited as time allows.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1492
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Deb wrote:
The two main historical sources agree in telling us the Sun should be at 8.10 Leo, and I think that position has to be a pivotal one for setting the chart because it's unlikely that computational differences would generate an error of more than a degree or two on that...

8.08 Leo is what we get when we make the conversion from the modern Krishnamurti to a zeta Pisces zodiac. (4Leo15 + 3.53) I had said earlier that the conversion was 3.43, but it's actually 3.53. (My calculation error)

I'm not a historical expert on what various writers have said. I merely set charts for the date generally agreed on: July 31, 762.

Quote:
There are various reasons why I wish we knew more about the use of the Zij al-Shabirjar tables, because it is obvious that these must have been used. And yet no modern sidereal method is able to recreate the reported results....

Deb, I'm not sure what you mean that no modern sidereal method can recreate the reported results. All we have to do is make the necessary correction to a zodiac that begins with zeta Pisces. It's true, however, that none of our contemporary zodiacs place zeta Pisces as the initial point. Perhaps that is what you meant.

Quote:
I am not trying to close down any argument, BTW; but wondering why it is that when Masha'allah gives a whole series of ingress charts for great conjunctions and the accession of a long line of rulers, the planetary positions in those charts also appear to make the best correspondence to a tropical system.

I have a copy of The Astrological History of Masha'allah (E. S. Kennedy and David Pingree). I offer these quotes while not completely understanding the mathematics:

"...It is only to be determined whether the solar year employed is tropical or sidereal. Ibn Hibinta's statement that Masha'allah used the Zij all-Shah and an annual excess of revolution equivalent to 93;15 degrees would indicate that it is sidereal; for the Zij employs and the parameter implies a year-length of 6,5;15,32,30d.

"One can confirm this result by examining the dates of the last eleven horoscopes in the series (the exact day depends upon the position of the Moon) and subtracting the longitudes of the Sun according to Masha'allah--all, of course, are Aries zero degrees--from the computed longitudes."

[There follows a table from 320 AD to 338 where the Sun progresses from +1 to +6 from the equinox.] (page 75)

From Appendix 2 (computations):
"From these figures it is clear that Masha'allah used the Zij al-Shah of Anushirwan in computing these horoscopes." (p. 142)

The Astrological History of Masha'allah, translated by E.S. Kennedy ad David Pingress, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1971.

Quote:
There is no doubt that the major influence of the astrological technique employed was Persian. I have even wondered whether there was some kind of 'dual' reference system going on, where fixed star (or maybe fixed stars and superior planet positions) were gained by sidereal reference but the Sun and inferior planet positions were derived tropically.

This question appears to be answered by examining the six horoscopes in Masha'allah's On Reception. The short answer is that the Sun and inferior planets positions are also sidereal, at least in that text. I am experimenting with formatting tables so they can be moved into Skyscript.

Another interesting point of discussion is why the star tables (nakshatra stars) in B. Suryanarain Rao's books differ from where they would be placed in the Raman sidereal zodiac. We can, of course, precisely place the initial point of Raman's zodiac.

Quote:
I do have another point to make (about the placement of Saturn) but the full reason for my interest in this positions deserves a bigger post than I can make at the moment. For now let me say that the sidereal position of Saturn in Aries would make a lot more sense to me than its tropical placement in Taurus...David Pingree says that Al Biruni recorded it as being in the 27th degree of Aries. The reference he gave was to the English translation of Al Biruni, which I referenced and linked to earlier. So this puzzles me - where did Pingree get that position of Saturn from...

Of course I have no idea of the source of that degree, but correcting for the zeta Pisces zodiac, Saturn is in Aries 28°48'.

Quote:
Thanks for posting the chart James. I notice Al Biruni's positions are not actually given in this thread, so include them below:

I'll note below the converted zeta Pisces positions after those positions.

26.40 Saturn: [26.40 Aries - according to Pingree*]
28.48 Aries, zeta Pisces

?????Sagittarius Jupiter:Sagittarius
6.08 Sagittarius, zeta Pisces

2.50 Gemini, Mars
4.17 Gemini, zeta Pisces

8.10 Leo, Sun
8.08 Leo, zeta Pisces

29 Gemini, Venus
30.05 Gemini (Cancer) zeta Pisces

25.07 Cancer, Mercury
24.16 Cancer, zeta Pisces

19.10 Libra, Moon
24.59 Libra, zeta Pisces

I think we tend to forget that this was long before the age of computers and the printing press. Everything had to be calculated and copied by hand. Isn't it a little unreasonable to expect very precise positions to the minute, and sometimes even to the precise degree? It may be doubtful that laborious hourly interpolation was attempted from existing tables except perhaps in extreme cases. This is why it's rather amazing that such small differences exist between Masha'allah's positions in On Reception and those of the Raman zodiac. But that is another post.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is getting very interesting Therese. I have family over today so will need to come back and re-read when I can focus better, but for a quick point - can you give the zeta Pisces position for the Moon; this seems to be missing from the list at the end of your post.

Of course I agree with your last comment, but there a great deal of value in understanding how historical charts were cast, and being able to reconstitute charts with as much reliability as possible. The information that comes out of this exercise might help us to add flesh to other charts recorded by Masha allah, where only partial details are recorded. That would be very exciting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
I have a copy of The Astrological History of Masha'allah (E. S. Kennedy and David Pingree). I offer these quotes while not completely understanding the mathematics:

"...It is only to be determined whether the solar year employed is tropical or sidereal. Ibn Hibinta's statement that Masha'allah used the Zij all-Shah and an annual excess of revolution equivalent to 93;15 degrees would indicate that it is sidereal; for the Zij employs and the parameter implies a year-length of 6,5;15,32,30d.

A traditional method for finding the correct time of an annual revolution is to add a certain constant value to the epoch for each year (in the case of nativities, the time of birth is the epoch). In the notation 6,5;15,32,30, each figure represents a unit 60 times greater than the following, the 5 being days. So the entire number represents 6 units of 60 days + 5 single days + 15 sixtieth-parts of a single day + 32 sixtieth-parts of a sixtieth-part + 30 sixtieth-parts of a sixtieth-part of a sixtieth-part (!). This is a more cumbersome way of saying 365 days 6 hours 13 minutes, or 365.2590278 days.

This is clearly an approximate value for the sidereal year, which is some 20 minutes longer than a tropical year due to precession (the tropical year is a little less than 365.25 days, the sidereal year is a little more). The Liber Aristotilis gives a very similar value (6,5;15,30, or 365 days 6 hours 12 minutes), as do Indian Tajika authors (6,5;15,31,30, or 365 days 6 hours 12 minutes 36 seconds). The modern value is around 365 days 6 hours 9 minutes 10 seconds.

If the time comprising a fraction of a day (15,32,30) is expressed as degrees of right ascension, we get 93.25 or 93 degrees 15 minutes.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks so much for clearing that up Martin - I think most of us would have been left pretty clueless on the meaning of that without your explanation!

Theresa, ignore what I wrote in my last post - obviously I can work out the Moon position myself from what you gave in the earlier chart. I'm checking the computational differences of the new figures - they look very promising. I expect to post again later with some questions you and Martin might be able (and hopefully willing) to help me with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1492
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I corrected my post with the Moon's position, Deb. Thanks for pointing out the omission. The Moon would be at 24.59 Libra in the zeta Pisces zodiac. But those tables were not perfect as is obvious from Masha'allah's positions. They are closer than the tropical values, however.

Another family member is arriving today. I'm getting too old for visitors! Only those of us in the older generation seem to own houses where others can visit.

I've been looking at planetary positions in Astrological History. This is indeed becoming interesting! When I first photocopied that book....must have been in the 1970s...I didn't fully understand the calculations and the value of the book.

Many thanks for your helpful explanation, Martin.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Therese. I wishI hadn’t started this over Christmas – I’m making sandwiches and cakes for visitors, but thinking about zodiacs Smile! Let me get this posted and off my mind for tonight ….
Quote:
All we have to do is make the necessary correction to a zodiac that begins with zeta Pisces. It's true, however, that none of our contemporary zodiacs place zeta Pisces as the initial point. Perhaps that is what you meant.

My problem is that I want to recreate the chart as authentically as possible, and find no way to come close to the positions with any of the sidereal zodiac options I have available in my astrology software. I understand that you have added a 3°53 correction to the positions in your earlier chart, which uses the Krishnamurti ayanamsa. I’m pleased but frustrated at the same time, because I can see this gives much better results, but don’t understand the logic of using that sidereal option and then adjusting it, and wouldn’t know how to change that correction for different periods. I guess I’m following you on this, without really understanding why, and I still can’t find a way to recreate the chart with those positions on my computer, which is annoying.

(As an aside - it would be great if someone wrote an introductory article explaining the basis of the different ayanamsas – I can’t be the only one perplexed by the fact that there is not just the tropical and sidereal zodiac, but the tropical zodiac and lots of sidereal alternatives. Why so many? What are the principles that differentiate all the named alternatives? Maybe there is a good source of reference for the issues involved; if there is, I’d love to know).

Getting back to the planet positions suggested now, I think this is very convincing in coming closer to the historically recorded positions than anything else I’ve seen. The table below shows Albiruni’s reported figures, alongside the modern computations of Tuckerman (reported by Pingree and Allawi) and then the ones reported by Therese. If we add the 3°53 to the ascendant of the earlier chart it brings the ascendant to 5°11 Sagittarius, so makes a perfect fit with the historical references Allawi reports (p.63) that the ascendant is in the 246th degree of absolute longitude, and there are 117 degrees between the ascendant and the Sun, to reflect the distance between the “‘face of Baghdad’ and the azimuth of Mecca”.

I like this. Am I right in thinking that it’s not possible to computer generate this chart? If not, I’ll hand-draw it, but before I do, is there anything I’ve got wrong or haven’t properly understood? (Corrections are very welcome!).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1492
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Deb wrote:
Thanks Therese. I wish I hadnt started this over Christmas. I'm making sandwiches and cakes for visitors, but thinking about zodiacs!

I had to smile at this. I'm trying to give time to family guests, but find my mind trying to figure out certain mathematical principles of ayanamsas. I finally decided I'm too tired to put it all together until everyone leaves.

Quote:
My problem is that I want to recreate the chart as authentically as possible, and find no way to come close to the positions with any of the sidereal zodiac options I have available in my astrology software.

This is true. The DeLuce ayanamsa is supposed to be close to the zeta Pisces zodiac (or even exact), but my program doesn't compute the charts correctly. There is supposed to be a user defined option to enter an ayanamsa value for January 1, 1900, but that option doesn't come up in Solar Fire 5. There are newer versions of the program where there may be the user defined option.

Quote:
I understand that you have added a 3°53 correction to the positions in your earlier chart, which uses the Krishnamurti ayanamsa. I'm pleased but frustrated at the same time, because I can see this gives much better results, but don't understand the logic of using that sidereal option and then adjusting it, and wouldn't know how to change that correction for different periods.

I'm working on an easy way to explain this, but I think I'd better wait until tomorrow when my thinking will (hopefully) be more clear.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's very kind and thoughtful of you. Take as long as you need Therese. Thumbs up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
(As an aside - it would be great if someone wrote an introductory article explaining the basis of the different ayanamsas – I can’t be the only one perplexed by the fact that there is not just the tropical and sidereal zodiac, but the tropical zodiac and lots of sidereal alternatives. Why so many? What are the principles that differentiate all the named alternatives? Maybe there is a good source of reference for the issues involved; if there is, I’d love to know).

The way I see it, there are just two basic alternatives: either the zodiac is fixed in relation to the constellations (sidereal) or fixed in relation to the seasons (tropical). Within either option, you then need to decide where to locate the starting point (because a circle has no beginning).

Historically, it is true that only one tropical zodiac has been in much use, namely, the one that equates the vernal equinox with 0° Aries -- no doubt because this zodiac came into use at a time when the vernal equinox was very near the beginning of the constellation Aries anyway. But some have argued for, and experimented with, a reverse tropical zodiac for the southern hemisphere (taking the northern autumnal equinox as 0° Aries), and other theoretical positions are possible.

Sidereal definitions have tended to focus on fiducial stars, and vary slightly (generally within a few degrees) according to which star is used as a marker -- for instance, Spica as 0° Libra, or Aldebaran as 15° Taurus. It is true that there are many such definitions, but it's not as if they're scattered all over the zodiac. Most are quite close. In a way, it's a similar situation to the profusion of house systems, and like house systems, people tend to choose the ayanāṃśa that produces charts that make sense to them astrologically, rather than astronomically.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Martin - I think it ought to be that simple, but in Janus, I get 10 different alternatives for sidereal calculation:

DeLuce
Fagan-Bradley
Krishnamurti
Lahiri
Larry Ely
Raman
Shill Pond
Sri Yutkeswar
Sundra Rajan
Usha-Shashi

I've tried to learn more about these, but there seems to be very little information available on the web. The difference between their calculations can be considerable. For example, calculating the Baghdad chart in the Larry Ely system places the Sun at 0 Leo and the Moon at 16.57 Libra - the same chart in the Usha-Shashi system places the Sun at 7.54 Leo and the Moon at 24.54 Libra.
Is there one, two or three of these systems that are considered more conventional than the rest? Can I ask which one you use?

If at any time someone is willing to offer a sentence or two to explain their names and what starting point they take, I would be happy to include the definitions in Skyscript's glossary of terms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, most of the values in current use are within 3-4 degrees of each other, but there are a few outliers to either side. The ones you list are all named after astrologers who proposed or used them, most of them Indians (Lahiri, Krishnamurti, Raman, Sri Yukteswar, Sundara Rajan, Usha-Shashi). The first two of these are very close (only 6' apart, with Spica at or near 0° Libra) and widely used among practitioners of Indian astrology today, though the third has a certain following as well. Western siderealists tend (or tended?) to favour the Fagan-Bradley value (which as I recall is based on Aldebaran). I use Krishnamurti myself, as does Therese, I think.

I'm sure there must be an informative article or two about the different values somewhere; I'll see if I can find one, unless Therese has something to suggest. Some of them are definitely minority options. I've no idea who Larry Ely is (or was), and I think it was DeLuce who based his value on the assumption that the vernal equinox ought to have entered sidereal Pisces around the birth of Jesus -- not an idea that cuts any ice with me, for several reasons...
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated