Aries/Taurus and zodiac beginning

[Guest guest]

--- Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

> At 01:03 AM 11/24/03 -0800, Juan wrote:

>

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

 

>

> We have recent translations of Mesopotamian star

> texts which give notations

> of how many degrees before or after certain stars a

> zodiac sign begins. For

> example the beginning of the sign of Cancer is noted

> to be 'with normal

> star 12, Beta Gemini.' (Pollux) (Hunger and Pingree,

> ASTRAL SCIENCES IN

> MESOPOTAMIA, p. 150)

>

I don't have an argument with what you have written

above but I don't understand how that relates to the

context of what I have written.

 

Imagine if you will... that you are an astrologer in

ancient Babylon... You write a text on your work....

Another couple of hundred of your contemporaries also

write their opinions and prepare texts. Do you think

that they would read the same? Would all of the texts

withstand thousands of years of preservation?

 

In my opinion we can only work with generalities in

terms of history. I can not read the Bible literally

to appreciate the information within it. It has been

written and translated so many times over the

century's that who knows what was in the original

text?

 

Fagan did his research and provided us with a wealth

of information to build on... He taught me to

investigate and to expand my conceptual thinking. He

also taught me to appreciate attention to detail.

 

Our interpretation of what we read shapes our

comprehension, our understanding and our passion.

 

 

> Aldebaran and Antares are NOT mentioned in relation

> to the signs of the

> zodiac.

 

So we are to assume that they did not exist?

 

None of the Fixed stars are today where they were

hundreds or thousands of years ago. Spica of all of

the Fixed Stars has moved the least which is why its

the primary anchor of determining the " zodiac " .

 

 

> Juan wrote:

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

> > zodiac until it was imported from the west " .

> >Was what they had begin with " Taurus " ?

>

> They had the 28 lunar asterisms which began with the

> Pleaides. These were

> groups of stars in the sky very unequally spaced

> with spaces between them.

> Indian scholars today admit that their most ancient

> texts have no reference

> to a 12 sign zodiac.

>

 

And the Pleaides are where? 5 Degrees Taurus?

 

 

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

> I

> >trust his work to be better than any other

> theroist's

>

> Divid Pingree isn't a theorist. He translates and

> studies ancient tablets

> and texts relating to the planets, stars and zodiac.

> He's a university

> scholar and internationally recognized as a noted

> specialist in his field.

> Perhaps THE most noted specialist.

>

> Certainly he's the best known among astrologers

> because he translates

> astronomical and astrological texts. We owe him a

> great debt in helping us

> understand the origin of the zodiac. His latest book

> was published in 1999,

> so his latest work was unknown to Fagan and Gleadow.

>

 

When you quote me, the least you could do is not quote

me out of context. Would you stake your life on Mr.

Pingree's theory? His opinion...his conjecture is

theory and would you stake your life or your family's

life on his theory?

 

 

> Juan wrote:

> >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.

>

> Yes, I have ANCIENT ASTROLOGY. She agrees with

> Pingree about the evidence

> from Mesopotamia.

>

> Juan wrote:

> >17 Constellations along the ecliptic. No Aires!

>

> The 'Hired Man' was Aries. This is interesting

> because today people with

> prominent planets in Aries often work with their

> hands. Mars is a physical

> planet.

>

 

Right... I know it(Aires) was in the sky then as it is

today... See Below.... where we disagree and you claim

Fagan blundered?

 

> Therese wrote:

> >> Fagan did blunder in relation to the zodiac once

> >> beginning from Taurus.

> >

> Juan wrote:

> >Let me remind you that on this point we disagree.

> >

> >Therese wrote:

> >> This is evident from recent translations of

> Mesopotamian texts.

>

 

Juan writes......... What is evident?

Are you saying that the Babylonians began their

" zodiac " with the " Hired Man " ?

 

When concepts and theories fail to dovetail. When

quotes are taken out of context. When questions go

unanswered. Confusion develops and credibility becomes

questionable. Suggest we end this failure to

communicate.

To presume that all astrologies come from a single

civilization source is questionable. To presume

that all civilizations created similar astrologies is

doubtful. To think that information unearthed in

Mesopotamia must be linked to " Indian " or " Chinese " is

presumptuous... No one knows for a fact what

transpired thousands of years ago. we can only presume

and offer conjecture and move on from there. All

astrologies are not created equal nor were the

individuals who developed them.

 

 

> This point about the beginning of the zodiac is

> important historically.

> Maybe we can discuss it later. It's a puzzle,

> however, if siderealists

> don't want to accept the more recent translations of

> scholars who study

> Mesopotamian tablets. It's kind of like throwing

> water in the faces of

> these specialists.

 

You read what you want to read and continue to develop

what you think is going on in the minds of

siderealists... I find that truths have a way of

changing over time as well as perceptions and

understanding. Once your thoughts are put to paper

they are no longer your own. They may not even reflect

the thought used to generate them.

>

> I expect if Cyril Fagan were alive today, he'd pay

> these scholars the honor

> of accepting their discoveries and revise his own

> beliefs and conjectures.

> Fagan was a scholar himself and as such, had to

> remain open minded. We

> honor your memory, Cyril!

>

> Sincerely,

> Therese

>

 

ya think?

 

Juan