Reply to Juan-Part 2 History of the Zodiac

[Guest guest]

(Continued from an earlier post)

 

Fagan missed (on facts) about the zodiac once beginning with Taurus. In

ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS (p. 98) he says: " The striking thing that emerges from

all this is the fact that with all the major nations of antiquity from the

beginning of recorded history, the ZODIAC (caps mine) began with the lunar

mansion of the Pleiades.... "

 

What Fagan didn't know was that there was no zodiac in those earlier

centuries. Yes, the 28 lunar asterisms began with the Pleiades, but in

early Mesopotamia there were 17 constellations in the path of the Moon.

This isn't a zodiac as we know it now. Fagan further says, " Why, then, in

the classical period was the Hindu zodiac altered to commence with Aswini

in Aries zero degrees.... "

 

The actual facts are that India never had a 12 sign zodiac until it was

imported from the west, when the first sign was already set at Aries. As I

said Fagan can't help it if certain translated texts weren't available when

he was alive.

 

>What are you referring to? What texts?

>What are the discrepancies?

 

As I've written above. David Pingree's texts deal with the translated texts

from Mesopotamia. I put some material on this list from his text relating

to the position of the stars in relation to zodiac signs. Remember?? The

early calculations were far too inexact to unquestionably put Aldebaran and

Antares at exactly 15 degrees of Taurus-Scorpio.

 

> So... your contention is that he was not consistent

>and rushed to erroneous conclusions ... And this is

>because he says that the Hindu's originally began

>their zodiac with Taurus and the Egyptians with

>Libra... What would you expect from two different

>civilizations? You're saying you have evidence to the

>contrary?

 

Not 'rushed.' Fagan took time to study and think. The evidence is that the

12 signs originated in Mesopotamia. The evidence is quite powerful that

India got its zodiac from the west all nicely set from Aries to Pisces.

There is no evidence that Egypt had a different zodiac from the one

developed in Mesopotamia. Rob Hand says,

 

" According to these texts the birthplace of astrology as we know it is

Egypt. This would not have been a surprise to Cyril Fagan. He maintained

all along that Egypt had been the birthplace of horoscopic astrology. The

trouble with his theory however is that he believed that horoscopic

astrology came into being in the Egypt of the pharaohs...It was a later

Egypt that gave birth to horoscopic astrology, an Egypt that had made close

contact with the ideas of the Babylonians. " (From " The History of

Astrology-Another View " )

 

Juan, I'm not an especially good predictive astrologer. I am a good

scholar, however. I have university degrees from two of the best schools in

the country. I'm not saying this to brag. I'm saying I was taught how to

search for information and how to separate facts from belief systems. I was

taught how to think logically. That's all.

 

I know how to research the literature and how to organize what I find. The

Tropical community has done us all a great service in translating ancient

texts. I'm referring to Robert Schmidt at Project Hindsight and Rob Hand at

Arhat. I've collected a large library whose cost is happily residing on

Visa cards. Some of these scholarly books cost around $100. (But Ken Bowser

has it all over on me. He has a library whose value would perhaps pay for

a fine house!)

 

>On the other hand he was a pioneer in developing the

>modern day astrologer. His work more than anyone else

>drove students to investigate historical realities.

>He questioned and because he did, he entertained many

>concepts.

 

This is true. Fagan was a great pioneer for the west. I've never questioned

that.

 

>Taurus is a logical beginning point. Did the

>Babylonians have the constellation of Aires in their

>version of the Zodiac? Did the original Hindu zodiac

>commence with the Nakshatra Krittika? Why was Aires

>significant for the Egyptians?

 

The very best writings I've seen on the ancient zodiac (aside from the very

expensive texts of university scholars) is by Rob Hand. These articles are

probably on his site: (robhand.com ??)

 

The Invariance of the Tropical Zodiac

A History of Astrology - Another View

 

>I don't have a copy of Fagan's Astrological Origins or

>I would look up your reference to Libra. I will tell

>you that prior to the Greeks the 12 houses of the

>Mundoscope operated with Libra or Akhet(Egyptian for

>sunrise) at the Ascendant.

 

That isn't necessarily fact because we have no evidence that the Egyptians

even used horoscopic astrology at that earlier time. This was a conjecture

of Fagan. Simply because the Akhet looked like Venus (it was actually used

as a tool of healing by Egyptian priests, being especially charged with

some kind of energy) in no way relates the Akhet to Venus. And way back

then it's extremely doubtful that any planet was associated either with

signs or constellations. At any rate we now have translated texts that

indicate that the origin of the zodiac was in Mesopotamia.

 

>How was he wrong?

 

As above, and also about the zodiac beginning with Taurus (which would make

the novien very questionable.)

 

What it boils down to is that the 12 sign 360 degree zodiac is not the same

as the ancient lunar asterisms. They are two separate entities with no real

relationship to each other. Even the more modern equal degree 28 lunar

mansions don't match the ancient star groups.

 

(reply to be continued)

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

--- Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

> (Continued from an earlier post)

>

> Fagan missed (on facts) about the zodiac once

> beginning with Taurus. In

> ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS (p. 98) he says: " The striking

> thing that emerges from

> all this is the fact that with all the major nations

> of antiquity from the

> beginning of recorded history, the ZODIAC (caps

> mine) began with the lunar

> mansion of the Pleiades.... "

>

> What Fagan didn't know was that there was no zodiac

> in those earlier

> centuries. Yes, the 28 lunar asterisms began with

> the Pleiades, but in

> early Mesopotamia there were 17 constellations in

> the path of the Moon.

> This isn't a zodiac as we know it now. Fagan further

> says, " Why, then, in

> the classical period was the Hindu zodiac altered to

> commence with Aswini

> in Aries zero degrees.... "

>

> The actual facts are that India never had a 12 sign

> zodiac until it was

> imported from the west, when the first sign was

> already set at Aries. As I

> said Fagan can't help it if certain translated texts

> weren't available when

> he was alive.

>

 

You are presuming that you " now " have the facts...

As you mentioned... " India never had a 12 sign

zodiac until it was imported from the west " .

Was what they had begin with " taurus " ?

 

Since I can't go back in time to actually " know " what

existed beyond my life's experience I recognize that

what I am working with is what has survived. Who knows

if was altered in a previous century.

 

 

 

> >What are you referring to? What texts?

> >What are the discrepancies?

>

> As I've written above. David Pingree's texts deal

> with the translated texts

> from Mesopotamia. I put some material on this list

> from his text relating

> to the position of the stars in relation to zodiac

> signs. Remember??

 

NO...

but then I don't read all of your posts...

 

David Pingree may be great at what he does... Would I

trust his work to be better than any other theroist's

conjecture at what history tells us? NO!.... Would you

stake your life on what he wrote? Your family? If not

.... then you maintain a critical approach to

information like I do...

 

Rob Hand says,

>

> " According to these texts the birthplace of

> astrology as we know it is

> Egypt. This would not have been a surprise to Cyril

> Fagan. He maintained

> all along that Egypt had been the birthplace of

> horoscopic astrology. The

> trouble with his theory however is that he believed

> that horoscopic

> astrology came into being in the Egypt of the

> pharaohs...It was a later

> Egypt that gave birth to horoscopic astrology, an

> Egypt that had made close

> contact with the ideas of the Babylonians. " (From

> " The History of

> Astrology-Another View " )

 

Tamsyn Barton, who wrote Ancient Astrology writes,

" the earliest evidence we have to consider in fact

comes from Mesopotamia. " Ms. Barton was the winner

of the Routledge Ancient History Prize for 1993.

Determining what astrology was and when it was

created/discovered is a continuing evolutionary

education.

 

 

 

>

> Juan, I'm not an especially good predictive

> astrologer. I am a good

> scholar, however. I have university degrees from two

> of the best schools in

> the country. I'm not saying this to brag. I'm saying

> I was taught how to

> search for information and how to separate facts

> from belief systems. I was

> taught how to think logically. That's all.

>

 

 

 

Keep that confidence... Believe in yourself... We all

work at our development and take pride in it.

My realization is that individuals develop their

truths. When you express your views as your own, I am

able to recognize what you are saying as your " truth " .

When you express yourself as a siderealist and I as a

siderealist think your views are incorrect, slanted or

" whatever " I'm gonna express my perspective. Though

I've let alot go by without commenting.

 

 

I try to contribute on occassion because I believe

its my purpose as well as everyone elses purpose to

contribute. A discussion group is not healthy if only

a limited number of the individuals are engaged.

 

 

 

> >Taurus is a logical beginning point. Did the

> >Babylonians have the constellation of Aires in

> their

> >version of the Zodiac? Did the original Hindu

> zodiac

> >commence with the Nakshatra Krittika? Why was Aires

> >significant for the Egyptians?

>

> The very best writings I've seen on the ancient

> zodiac (aside from the very

> expensive texts of university scholars) is by Rob

> Hand. These articles are

> probably on his site: (robhand.com ??)

>

> The Invariance of the Tropical Zodiac

> A History of Astrology - Another View

 

 

I've read Rob's writings and I know the answers to the

questons above which you defer from answering.

 

 

>

> >I don't have a copy of Fagan's Astrological Origins

> or

> >I would look up your reference to Libra. I will

> tell

> >you that prior to the Greeks the 12 houses of the

> >Mundoscope operated with Libra or Akhet(Egyptian

> for

> >sunrise) at the Ascendant.

>

> That isn't necessarily fact because we have no

> evidence that the Egyptians

> even used horoscopic astrology at that earlier time.

> This was a conjecture

> of Fagan.

Also that of KHM9 Andres Takra who wrote " The Wisdom

of Sidereal Astrology "

 

Simply because the Akhet looked like Venus

> (it was actually used

> as a tool of healing by Egyptian priests, being

> especially charged with

> some kind of energy) in no way relates the Akhet to

> Venus. And way back

> then it's extremely doubtful that any planet was

> associated either with

> signs or constellations. At any rate we now have

> translated texts that

> indicate that the origin of the zodiac was in

> Mesopotamia.

>

17 Constellations along the ecliptic. No Aires!

 

> >How was he wrong?

>

> As above, and also about the zodiac beginning with

> Taurus (which would make

> the novien very questionable.)

 

You have a right to your opinion...

 

>

> What it boils down to is that the 12 sign 360 degree

> zodiac is not the same

> as the ancient lunar asterisms. They are two

> separate entities with no real

> relationship to each other. Even the more modern

> equal degree 28 lunar

> mansions don't match the ancient star groups.

>

> (reply to be continued)

>

> Therese

>

>

 

 

Its just not like apples and oranges...

 

Juan

 

>

>