Min's Sidereal Astrology FAQ
Daniel Min, Ph.D.
Q1. Is sidereal astrology based on the stars?
A1. Yes. Sidereal astrology references positions
of planets on the caelestial zodiac. As with
all astrology it is centered on the ecliptic
zero degrees latitude, with longitudes taken
from Aldebaran fifteen degrees Taurus proper
motion accounted for. Practicing astrologers
should reference at least several stars near
longitudinal conjunction with planets, where
star-accuracy needs to be established. As we
see, astronomical accuracy is fundamental to
accurate astrological deduction of the chart,
but inaccurate charts are in danger of error.
Thus Nostradamus wrote there is nothing less
uncertain than strict astronomic calculation.
Whereas, for logical deduction no one claims
to be master thereof on account of difficulty
that which is read. This takes much practice,
and requires both caelestial and terrestrial
calculations. Note I've thoroughly addressed
the latter in the new Judicial Astrology FAQ.
Q2. How does sidereal astrology differ from common
tropical astrology & does it make a difference
as to how an astrological chart is interpreted?
A2. First, see the Tropical Astrology FAQ posted
on this archived webpage:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=32CBJAW1377...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
As you see, tropical astrology tracks months
of the tropical year, but not a place on the
caelestial sphere. For caelestial astrology,
we're clearly referring to caelestial lights
that we can see emanating from the night sky.
For a complete listing of these "1000 lights"
for the J2000 mazzaroth, refer to these URLs:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=NTEHBAUS376...@Nyarlatheotep-frog.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9321Y7803763...@Nyarlatheotep-frog.org
Q3. The word "constellation" seems to have several
meanings. What does constellation really mean?
A3. A constellation is exactly 1/12th of the sky.
Thus, each constellation measures 30 degrees
longitude by 180 degrees latitude--measuring
from ecliptic pole-to-pole. That's all it is.
There are a few other dictionary definitions
which of course are impertinent to astrology.
To avoid confusion with "constellations", as
defined by orthodox astronomers in the 1930s
(more appropriately known as asterisms), you
would do well to say zodiacal constellations.
That way, there can be no possible confusion.
The difference really isn't that significant,
however, since the fiducial stars pertain to
relative positions of the planets. If we say
Jupiter is near 5 degrees Leo, then I should
be able to see Jupiter near Regulus. That is
what's important about sidereal positions as
applied to the planets. This falls mainly in
the category of astronomy, and using the old,
twelve-equal divisions of the sky instead of
the modern, I.A.U. unequal coordinate system.
Either way we're just trying to identify the
position of the planets against the backdrop
of Earth's celestial firmament and that's it.
Like Cayce said it is "arbitrary" concerning
the caelestial, or universal position of the
planet in a certain portion of the sky. Only
each planets' relative position to the Earth
is what really counts in astrology. We don't
care that Venus is in this celestial sign or
that caelestial sign but only that Venus has
a ruling, fallen etc., aspect in a horoscope,
which is strictly to Earth's meridian houses.
We use the bright marking stars to reference
the positions of the planets in the sky, and
we use that data to adjudicate the horoscope
on Earth. This is about aspects, not distant
suns, but of planets within our solar system.
Q4. I've read that some sidereal astrologers, like
Fagan, Allen, Firebrace, Gleadow, et al, refer
to an "ayanamsa" or offset of the vernal point
from zero degrees caelestial Aries at any date.
What gives with this? Why reference the vernal
point at all to ascertain sidereal coordinates?
A4. Most if not all modern astronomy & astrology
software refers to the vernal point and that
is the only plausible reason for referencing
an ayanamsha in sidereal astrology. Astrolog,
for example, requires that you set Aldebaran
15 Tau by subtracting the difference between
the vernal point and 15 Tau minus 45 degrees;
which, at this writing, is near to -24.82675.
Don't use this figure! But calculate for the
precise epoch-of-date-and-time of your chart.
We use a common fiducial star for continuity,
so that each astronomer can communicate with
others in the common language of mathematics.
Aldebaran the Bull's Eye at 15 Taurus as the
prime fiducial star is very easy to remember.
The Bull's Eye has always meant "dead-center".
Q5. Some talk about Spica as located about 29Vir06,
but this places Aldebaran slightly off 15Tau03.
What's the most accurate star to reference for
the caelestial "prime fiducial" of the zodiac?
A5. Aldebaran 15Tau00 is the most common ancient
reference as observed by the Babylonians and
Parthians who were the top-notch astronomers
of ancient history although arguably rivaled
by the ancient Mayans, and other astronomers
of more ancient times whose records are lost
to antiquity. Considering that the Magoi who
predicted the star of Jesus were Babylonians,
Parthians (many were descendants of Abraham),
this is sufficient authority for Al-debaranu
at 15 degrees Taurus above all others. There
are many fiducial stars, the most "fixed" of
which has nearly zero proper motion, such as
the galactic center, a.k.a. "Sun of our Sun"
2Sag04'24" -5:36'28" at this writing, 25-May-
2003, which at 2Sag matches with Al-debaranu
15Tau for establishing all longitudes in the
caelestial a.k.a. sidereal zodiac. Aldebaran
has proper motion, and so all charts must be
calculated for epoch of date, with Aldebaran
defining 15Tau00 proper motion accounted for.
The fact that you can see Aldebaran or Spica
with the naked eye makes stars preferable to
invisible (but powerful) objects like Sgr A*.
Again, Aldebaran at 15Tau is the most common
ancient reference, and was used by the Magoi.
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPtF135ljD7YrHM/nEQIM0ACfdagilk1yHOoZdyjdOdlkUCvhJjMAoI1T
nJQZ2mx/0YCCBXCcytlE9MGi
=gNvF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mary
Daniel Min, Ph.D. <profes...@astro.physics.edu> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN
Drop dead asshole!
byrrha
0 FOR gawd's sakes; allow them w/o dissertations to have a piece. you
are too too cruel.
byrrha