The futility of the astrological lists-Hindu

[Guest guest]

Alfonso,

 

You want to discuss horoscopes? All right, I will reply to Anny's post

about Princess Diana, whose birthtime controversy we are all so very tired

of. Nevertheless, her chart is good for exploration and/or validation of

Hindu astrology.

 

Yes, the astrological lists are disappointing, so do you want to help make

this one better? (more below)

 

At 08:29 PM 5/3/03 -0000, you wrote:

> To Therese and Anny:

> In my case, I want to confess you that I am so disappointed of the

>astrological lists, that I have started quitting them in a gradually

>but sustained way.

 

>The other flaw is that nobody gives predictions but run to explain

>the events once they have happened!

 

Perhaps we are only being honest here. We have a long way to go before

there is a science of prediction, even though astrologers have been trying

to predict events for thousands of years. It's better to study a chart in

light of a known event then to guess what will happen because we don't know

enough about astrology.

 

> In this list anarchy is what reigns here. Nobody knows what are the

>purposes and objectives of this list...

 

I have asked this question already, but there has been no reply from the

list owner. Perhaps he will post the purpose of this list. It must be on

, but for some reason the site won't accept my ID.

 

> This list, like all other astrological list, should have the only

>purpose of analyzing charts and exchanging views about how events

>could be foreseen through the lens of the sidereal zodiac. The only

>rule should be this one: to work with a sidereal zodiac. From there

>on, there should be freedom in choosing the ayanamsa, the

>domification and the way aspects should be graduated,etc,etc.

 

Personally I like to see Tropoical/sidereal comparisons, but perhaps they

don't belong on this particular list. I think it's very helpful to see the

Tropical and sidereal charts side-by-side because this shows the usefulness

of the sidereal signs and houses. But I know you and Anny don't want to

discuss Tropical charts. So, since this is a sidereal board, I will stay

with the sidereal.

 

>And since the hindu astrology was taught and written in sanskrit,

>there is the need to learn and to incorporate to your language some

>sanskrit terms, which give the false impression that there is some

>snobbery amongst hindu astrologers.

 

Actully most of what is called 'Hindu Astrology' is taken from Hellenistic

astrology. India has preserved the old western astrology and re-named it

" Hindu. " Anyone who has studied the Arhat (Rob Hand) and Project Hindsight

newly translated Greek and Arabic texts sees that they are very similar to

the old Hindu texts, but they are better organized and more clearly

written. Some of the Sanskrit terms are better such as 'Rahu' and 'Ketu'

for the Moon's nodes. These terms (the head and tail of the serpent)

somehow say more than 'north node' and 'south node' which don't mean much

of anything.

 

So, Alfonso, we'll discuss Princess Diana's chart in light of Hindu

astrology and the controversy over her birth time?? If you're interested, I

will post the controversial times. I'll have to find them in my files first.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/3/2003 11:41:53 PM Central Daylight Time,

apocalocust writes:

 

> Fagan's recommended 2.5 degree orb

 

i stetch it to 10 degrees on angles or between luminaries /// wing

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " alfonsoosorio " <alfonsoosorio>

wrote:

> There are many flaws in all those lists, starting with the low

> astrological level showed, and mainly, by the loose connections that

> are often made by the astrologers in their efforts to find

> correspondance between their concepts and the events.

 

I feel much the same way you do. I've always said that the worst thing about

astrology is that it brings out all the fuzzy-headed new age types. I'm a

scientist, interested in the science of astrology (and there is one, as Fagan's

statistical research has demonstrated). It frankly amazes me that 10 celestial

objects and the three cardinal aspects (conjunction, opposition, and square)

that have been demonstrated statistically useful aren't enough for people.

 

Some fun math: if you use Fagan's recommended 2.5 degree orb (with <0.5 degrees

being the really strong point), the quindecimus aspect system (ie, all aspects

are multiples of 15 degrees--15, 30, 45, 60, 75, all the way through), any two

planets have an aspect between them a full one-third of the time. How is that

useful? Using wider orbs, imaginary planets and points (Rahu and Ketu*, the

Uranians, imaginary trans-Neptunians, and even midpoints between objects),

various imagined house systems, and aspects based on Nth-harmonic charts, and

you can find *something* that will explain anything you can imagine 100% of the

time.

 

* The Moon's nodes have been shown to have an effect on weather, probably

electrical in nature, but otherwise no astrological effect that I am aware of.

 

The only way to practice astrology in a *useful* manner is to cull your methods

down to only what can be statistically demonstrated as significant: angularity,

tight cardinal aspects between the 10 main celestial bodies, cardinal ingress

charts, solar and lunar returns, secondary progressions (and regressions) of all

of the above, and a little bit of zodiacal-sign flavoring.

 

(Pursuant to this, I have developed a freeware western sidereal astrology

program to make calculation of all of this easy and correct.

http://home.attbi.com/~jesse.m/aldebaran/ )

 

Jyotish is a step in the right direction, but it's been polluted much the same

way as pop astrology has with misinformation and imagined connections.

 

 

> It surprises me to read that an aspect with even 3 degrees of orb of

> a secondary progression to a natal planet is oftenly seen as a proof

> of the validity of a chart(?). The contacts of the inner planets is

> also shown as an evidence forgetting that they had aspected

> frequently the same points but without producing the same kind of

> event before.

 

In fairness, one thing that has to be considered is the angularity of an aspect.

As Fagan said in his _Primer of Sidereal Astrology_, even the most baneful

configurations will be completely unnoticed if they're near the inactive places.

 

 

> The other flaw is that nobody gives predictions but run to explain

> the events once they have happened!

 

This seems to be an unfortunate necessity right now--we haven't yet refined the

science of astrology to the point where useful predictions can be made.

Example: Mars, Saturn, and Uranus angular in a cardinal ingress are strongly

associated with earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and similar violent movements of

the Earth. Not all cardinal ingresses with one or two of the abovelisted

planets angular will be followed by major earthquakes--but major earthquakes are

almost always preceded by a Cap/Can ingress chart featuring those planets.

 

At this point, I think the best we can do is determine a probability of an event

happening. Prediction may come eventually.

 

 

I agree with you that this list has far too much drama and fuzzy astrology, and

too little honest and proven technique--but the only way to change it is by

speaking up, not running away.

 

 

> Alfonso Osorio

 

Jesse Milligan

[Guest guest]

Jesse,

 

Neither Fagan's 2.5* orb nor the three cardinal aspects give the keystone aspect

for

 

Leonardo da Vinci

April 14, 1452

9:03:39 pm UT

Anchiano, Italy

 

R.

 

 

Zorak wrote:

 

>

> . It frankly amazes me that 10 celestial objects and the three cardinal

aspects (conjunction, opposition, and square) that have been demonstrated

statistically useful aren't enough for people.

>

> Some fun math: if you use Fagan's recommended 2.5 degree orb (with <0.5

degrees being the really strong point), the quindecimus aspect system (ie, all

aspects are multiples of 15 degrees--15, 30, 45, 60, 75, all the way through),

[Guest guest]

I am very glad to find that at least another member of this list

shares the same viewpoints about how this list has done so poorly and

also shares my critical approach to astrology.

 

The other day I asked to all of you if someone had studied

statistics and probability. You may ask to yourselves why do I

address this question.

 

 

Well the day you do it,i.e., you become aquainted with the principles

of those disciplines,you will inmediately change your approach to

astrology, because you will learn how easy is to find contacts

between the planets ,specially when you increase the orb and you

include more aspects than the conventionals.

 

 

And if besides that, you include the dreadful asteroids, you are

bound to find ALWAYS SOME connection, although completely SPURIOUS.

 

 

This is why I invite Anny to abandon them, to drop them today,from

this moment on, because she is condemned to dellude herself

permanently if she introduces those useless asteroids in her chart

analysis.

 

 

I wonder why, of all the possible charts to analyze, you choose

Diana's, when there is no consensus about her birthtime. And why do

you insist on making post-morten astrology?

 

Instead of analyzing her chart, why not consider Prince Charles? In

my opinion he has great chances for marrying in the following 12

months.

 

 

The only thing I don't agree with Jesse Milligan is when he affirms

that vedic astrology " has been polluted with imagined connections " . I

don't follow strictly what is he trying to say. But anyway, contrary

to that, hindu astrology sticks too much to the traditions and maybe

that can be its main flaw.

 

 

Finally, Jesse invites me to do not run away from this list, a thing

I won't do if many of the list members start to come out of their

closets. It is refreshing to read postings from others who like Jesse

have many things to share.But it is a pitty persons like Ken Bowser

don't participate here. He is a learned and educated astrologer,

something not very common.

 

Remember that a list works well only when all their members want it.

So I invite you all to not let this list falls down.

 

 

Alfonso Osorio

 

 

, " Zorak " <apocalocust>

wrote:

> , " alfonsoosorio "

<alfonsoosorio> wrote:

> > There are many flaws in all those lists, starting with the low

> > astrological level showed, and mainly, by the loose connections

that

> > are often made by the astrologers in their efforts to find

> > correspondance between their concepts and the events.

>

> I feel much the same way you do. I've always said that the worst

thing about astrology is that it brings out all the fuzzy-headed new

age types. I'm a scientist, interested in the science of astrology

(and there is one, as Fagan's statistical research has

demonstrated). It frankly amazes me that 10 celestial objects and

the three cardinal aspects (conjunction, opposition, and square) that

have been demonstrated statistically useful aren't enough for people.

>

> Some fun math: if you use Fagan's recommended 2.5 degree orb (with

<0.5 degrees being the really strong point), the quindecimus aspect

system (ie, all aspects are multiples of 15 degrees--15, 30, 45, 60,

75, all the way through), any two planets have an aspect between them

a full one-third of the time. How is that useful? Using wider orbs,

imaginary planets and points (Rahu and Ketu*, the Uranians, imaginary

trans-Neptunians, and even midpoints between objects), various

imagined house systems, and aspects based on Nth-harmonic charts, and

you can find *something* that will explain anything you can imagine

100% of the time.

>

> * The Moon's nodes have been shown to have an effect on weather,

probably electrical in nature, but otherwise no astrological effect

that I am aware of.

>

> The only way to practice astrology in a *useful* manner is to cull

your methods down to only what can be statistically demonstrated as

significant: angularity, tight cardinal aspects between the 10 main

celestial bodies, cardinal ingress charts, solar and lunar returns,

secondary progressions (and regressions) of all of the above, and a

little bit of zodiacal-sign flavoring.

>

> (Pursuant to this, I have developed a freeware western sidereal

astrology program to make calculation of all of this easy and

correct. http://home.attbi.com/~jesse.m/aldebaran/ )

>

> Jyotish is a step in the right direction, but it's been polluted

much the same way as pop astrology has with misinformation and

imagined connections.

>

>

> > It surprises me to read that an aspect with even 3 degrees of orb

of

> > a secondary progression to a natal planet is oftenly seen as a

proof

> > of the validity of a chart(?). The contacts of the inner planets

is

> > also shown as an evidence forgetting that they had aspected

> > frequently the same points but without producing the same kind of

> > event before.

>

> In fairness, one thing that has to be considered is the angularity

of an aspect. As Fagan said in his _Primer of Sidereal Astrology_,

even the most baneful configurations will be completely unnoticed if

they're near the inactive places.

>

>

> > The other flaw is that nobody gives predictions but run to

explain

> > the events once they have happened!

>

> This seems to be an unfortunate necessity right now--we haven't yet

refined the science of astrology to the point where useful

predictions can be made. Example: Mars, Saturn, and Uranus angular

in a cardinal ingress are strongly associated with earthquakes,

volcano eruptions, and similar violent movements of the Earth. Not

all cardinal ingresses with one or two of the abovelisted planets

angular will be followed by major earthquakes--but major earthquakes

are almost always preceded by a Cap/Can ingress chart featuring those

planets.

>

> At this point, I think the best we can do is determine a

probability of an event happening. Prediction may come eventually.

>

>

> I agree with you that this list has far too much drama and fuzzy

astrology, and too little honest and proven technique--but the only

way to change it is by speaking up, not running away.

>

>

> > Alfonso Osorio

>

> Jesse Milligan

[Guest guest]

> The only thing I don't agree with Jesse Milligan is when he affirms

> that vedic astrology " has been polluted with imagined connections " . I

> don't follow strictly what is he trying to say. But anyway, contrary

> to that, hindu astrology sticks too much to the traditions and maybe

> that can be its main flaw.

 

I was thinking specifically of the harmonic charts and the common practice of

sign-wide orbs. Ie, a planet in Cancer and a planet in Capricorn being

considered in opposition no matter where they are in those respective signs.

Harmonic charts require extraordinary precision to compute correctly, especially

the higher harmonics, and I thus question how traditional they really are. I

also don't see the logic behind how the period rulers are derived.

 

I must admit, however, that I haven't yet studied jyotish in any great depth; it

may indeed have some usefulness I have not yet discovered, and I remain open on

this.

 

Jesse Milligan

[Guest guest]

, cpwing44@a... wrote:

> > Fagan's recommended 2.5 degree orb

>

> i stetch it to 10 degrees on angles or between luminaries /// wing

 

For conjunctions to angles, a wider consideration may be reasonable, especially

if the time isn't known very precisely. Why do you use such a wide orb for the

luminaries, though?

 

We don't really know what transmits astrological force, if anything, but it

makes sense to try and set some reasonably low boundaries. The 2.5 degree orb

recommendation was based on, if I remember correctly, radio interferometry.

Anecdotally, I don't personally recognize any effect much beyond 1.5 degrees

orb, with the really strong effects typically happening within hours of exact

aspect--even for slow-moving bodies.

 

What in your experience leads you to use a 10 degree orb for the luminaries?

(Also, do you mean aspects between the two luminaries themselves, or between a

planet and a luminary?)

 

 

Jesse Milligan

[Guest guest]

, Richard <erichardg@e...> wrote:

> Neither Fagan's 2.5* orb nor the three cardinal aspects give the keystone

aspect for

>

> Leonardo da Vinci

> April 14, 1452

> 9:03:39 pm UT

> Anchiano, Italy

 

 

What in your opinion is the 'keystone aspect' for da Vinci?

[Guest guest]

At 12:17 PM 5/5/03 -0000, Jesse M. wrote:

 

>>I was thinking specifically of the harmonic charts and the common

practice of sign-wide orbs. Ie, a planet in Cancer and a planet in

Capricorn being considered in opposition no matter where they are in those

respective signs.

 

Actually in practice many Jyotish astrologers consider orbs. I certainly

do. But in India probably many astrologers stay with wide in-sign aspects.

 

>>Harmonic charts require extraordinary precision to compute correctly,

especially the higher harmonics, and I thus question how traditional they

really are.

 

Mostly Jyotish astrologers use only the navamsa or 9th harmonic chart as a

general support for the natal chart.

 

>>I also don't see the logic behind how the period rulers are derived.

 

No one else does either, and there are many systems of period rulers in

India, though most astrologers use Vimshottari, which includes Rahu and

Ketu as period rulers.

 

Therese