Ayanamsa study

[Arena]

Today I though of Edgar Cayce, as I've done sometimes before. I would like to get over some of his writings on astrology as he did believe in it, but in his life he said that astrologers were using a zodiac that was about one sign off or up to 30 degrees (http://www.edgarcaycenyc.org/index.php/ ... s-the-self). I've often thought that this was his way of telling us that it is actually the sidereal zodiac that is the correct one. BUT he must have been using a different ayanamsa than Fagan-Bradley or Lahiri. I therefore looked online to find different ayanamsas, and I've noticed in astro.com that they recently added many different ayanamsas in the extended chart sections.

Just found this study online (http://home.windstream.net/overbeck/AyanStat.pdf), find it quite interesting that none of the ayanamsa tested passed the test.
Not Fagan-Bradley and not the others either. But they did not test the ayanamsa based on the galactic equator wich is about 30degr off now. Some of you may find some flaws in the study ... but I do sometimes question the ayanamsa and I do it because I do believe that Cayce had some kind of "special connection" to the universe.

So I went on to try to find what astronomy says about the VEpoint, but I am not an astronomer nor do I have a telescope to look and find it. But I found this (https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20160320_08_100) where it says that the actual VEpoint is at 00.05 Pisces (not around 5 Pisces). So by actual reality we are very very close to entering the Aquarian age.

I know some of you may jump up and say that astrology and astronomy are not exactly the same thing... but I am a creature of nature and I believe that if there is something to astrology (as I believe there is) then it will actually be very closely connected to the actual world of stars. To me there is also something exciting about using the Galactic center and Galactic equator.

I do also know that Bradley/Allen did extensive research on his ayanamsa point, but that does not mean it is 100% correct or that he was unable to make a mistake.

I do believe that we are onto something by using a sidereal zodiac, but to me it doesn't mean that there are no discoveries ever to be made again and that we already have it all figured out 100% ... and I do not have a problem entertaining the possibility that the ayanamsas are a bit off.

PS. Cayce also supposedly said that through free will man may move the planets and the stars. In this regard, we have the power to literally change outcomes or conditions indicated by our natal chart. (In my opinion this may have to do with relocation astrology, that is how we can possibly change the outcome of our natal charts).

[Arena]

by Jupiter Sets At Dawn on Sat May 28, 2016 7:45 pm

Your ayanamsa study, from Buzz Overbeck's site says up front:
A statistical study testing 25 Ayanamsas applied to the moon in the lunar mansions or nakshatras, against 12 large data sets of timed births from the Gauquelin archives. - Originally published in KP Astrology International Journal, Vol 1 Issue 1 - KP Astrologer's Forum, India - January 2008.


I thought you didn't think Gauquelin's data was accurate enough to use.
Aren't there about forty different ways of defining the nakshatras? Which one is being used here?

Overbeck also says:
Although there is much anecdotal evidence of the validity of the chosen ayanamsa by its adherents, a search of the literature failed to turn up any detailed statistical study of various ayanamsa values. This work serves to fill that gap and encourage further research by others.

We don't need to compare different ayanamsas. We already know we have the right one, ascertained using detailed statistical studies, which Jim keeps accidentally proving is the right one all over again in his SMA work. We really don't need to keep going over the same ground. It's much more productive to move on.

BTW, that article is from 2008, so it's entirely possible Overbeck has done more research and has moved on too.


US Naval Observatory
The U.S. Naval Observatory is responsible for determining and predicting the time-varying alignment of the Earth's terrestrial reference frame with respect to the celestial reference frame. USNO is the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) Rapid Service/Prediction Center (RS/PC) for Earth Orientation.

In other words, they are the last word worldwide on precession and the orientation of the earth to the stars.
Jupiter Sets At Dawn

[Arena]

We really don't need to keep going over the same ground. It's much more productive to move on.

Oh that is a funny one
The same sentence could be used by tropical astrologers, they do not need to question what they are doing... same goes for those back in the days that thought the earth was flat and they had all the info they needed to tell them so

I've told you before JSAD that I would never have found this forum if I had not been asking myself questions about the astrology I was learning, so don't try and convince me that I should not keep asking myself questions about astrology And another point about asking questions... I was born with a prominent Uranus and a partile Moon-Mercury square. I will always keep asking questions, I will always be in learning mode and I will always want to make new discoveries, it's what I am destined to do by astrology ...it does not mean they will all be right, but it is just a force that is stronger than just saying "oh just settle for what you found now and stop asking questions". That is not what Bradley and Fagan did. If you want to do that for yourself, that's fine, it is your choice then. We all have to make our own choices on our learning paths.

Interestingly JSAD our synastry shows me that your Pluto is on my Mercury and my Pluto is on your Mercury. Showing that we are capable of transforming each other's ideas in a revolutionary way - we might just embrace that ... but I feel sometimes that you have some kind of need to attack me (and I notice your Mars is square my Sun - so maybe that is why).

PLUTO aspecting Natal MERCURY
Your opinions - in fact your whole way of thinking - are passing through considerable change. In a revolt against lazy, prosaic thinking, your acute, penetrating detective's mind peers more deeply and observes less naively. Others may feel alienated by your impatience and willingness to confront any shortsighted concept, almost obsessively demanding answers where previously you have had none. Thinking along independent or bizarre lines, you may achieve a newly profound understanding of truth.
IN BRIEF: Transformation of ideas. Opinions independent and unusual. Revolution in thinking style. Curiosity intensified. Willing to confront shortsighted concepts, you achieve deep understanding, or alienate others through confrontation.

I know they used the Gauquelin data and you do know, as well as I do, that a portion of that data is not accurately recorded, showing us some portions where the birth data was reported to half hours or quarters of hours. And it matters.

I also know that Bradley did extensive work to find his ayanamsa. I also know that Jim has done a lot of great work on mundane events. I have great respect for that work. It does not necessarily mean it is the 100% correct one, although it may be. I've not seen comparison with the Galactic equator ayanamsa that would put Regulus at 0 Leo.

The star Regulus in the constellation Leo is the brightest star in that constellation and the chief or king star. Ancient civilizations recognized Regulus as the king star, the one and only king star in the zodiac. Regulus means kingly in Latin.

Cayce said in many readings that the tropical (Egyptian) zodiac was off/wrong and that we should look to the Persian zodiac. He said that the zodiac was 30 or nearly 30 degrees off. Whether "nearly 30" is around 25 or whether "nearly 30" is more like 29,xx we do not know. But I wonder if he was using astrology so much as he seems to have done, if he wouldn't have said that the tropical zodiac was around 25 degr off rather than saying nearly 30.

“For instance, the astrological influences are not in the form or manner as has been so oft and is so oft judged by the purely astrological aspects from records. For the shifting, the changes that have been wrought in the zodiac as well as the signs and positions of this material sphere in relationship to the whole have been misjudged.” (1770-2)

“....the variations in time have been corrected by the Persians and not by the Egyptians. The Egyptian calculations are thirty degrees off. “(2011-3)

“For most astrologers are nearly thirty degrees off in their reckoning in the present.” (3376-2)

Cayce did also state that the star Arcturus was of great importance, being just next to Spica may point us in the direction of them being the zero point between Virgo and Libra, similar to Bradley's or Krishnamurti findings.

Edgar Cayce gave great importance to Arcturus as evidenced from these quotes from his readings:

“For Arcturus is the way, the door out of this system.” (2454-3)

“Not that the Sun as the center of the solar system is all there is. For the entity has attained to that realm even of Arcturus, or that center from which there may be the entrance into other realms of consciousness.” (2823-1)

“Arcturus is that which may be called the center of the universe, through which individuals pass and at which period there comes a choice of the individual as to whether it is to return [to earth] or to pass on to [other systems]. (5749-14)

“Arcturus is that junction between spheres of activity as related to cosmic force, and is that about which this particular sphere of activity rotates...” (263-15)

So, at least according to Edgar Cayce, the degree of Arcturus (and Spica) is of critical importance for the evolution of mankind. Does the longitudinal degree of Spica–Arcturus—the junction point between Virgo and Libra— mark a critical wave emanation point for the Sidereal zodiac? Just opposite this point is zero degrees of Aries.

Cayce also seems to have put emphasis on the exaltation of the planets (and those should be from a sidereal zodiac)

I have no presumptions to where my search will lead me - I may find that Galactic equator ayanamsa is more correct, I may find that Fagan-Bradley is more correct. This may well take me a few days or few years. But I simply need to search.

[Arena]

JSAD wrote:

We don't need to compare different ayanamsas. We already know we have the right one, ascertained using detailed statistical studies, which Jim keeps accidentally proving is the right one all over again in his SMA work.

Exactly! IMO, Jim’s work with his book SMA proves the correct ayanamsas is Fagan’s/Bradley Sidereal Zodiac. IMO, one of the best ways to prove to one’s mind and heart that we are working with the correct ayanamsa is calculate all of Jim’s Cap Quotidians (CapQ’s) SMA examples focusing on the precise angular hits; and, then take the same CapQ examples calculating with other ayanamsas and noting you lose the preciseness of angular hits. 98% of astrologers will not take the necessary time to do this type of detailed work, but if you will start by doing just a few CapQ examples in the above manner the profound knowledge that Bradley with his 1957 work will be proved that he rediscovered the true equal 12-30 divisions of the Sidereal Zodiac of the ancients. IMO, we are dealing with revealed astronomical/astrological knowledge to each of our individual minds/hearts, and we each have our own individual way of proving this revealed knowledge to our minds/hearts. Arena, I understand your quest for knowledge, it takes time and a lot of mental work because we are working with a ‘Royal Science’—that Science being Astronomy with true mathematical celestial motion. We are not all gifted like Jim with his innate knowledge of astronomy—it took me years of painstaking study which allowed true revealed astrological knowledge pertaining to Fagan/Bradley Sidereal Zodiac. True astrological learning must begin with a sound understanding of Astronomy and to the layperson this is a very difficult task, my learning continues.

There is one reading where Cayce speaks about rising sign as sign of appearance (imo):

11. “For, as has been indicated, the characteristics, or that attained by an individual, are indicated by the sign under which the entity enters an appearance. (This as a side note: Remember, those indicated in the charts that are accepted by most astrologers are some ten days behind. Thus we find some variations in the information indicated for individuals through these channels.)” (5746-1)

I truly believe we already have seen "the dawn" of the age of Aquarius with all the technological advances in the most recent history. It has been like a HUGE leap into a new age.

[Arena]

Don't you just adore the Piscean way that people evangelically insist we're in the Aquarius Age? <vbseg>

I don't consider it "a Piscean way" to look at reality to see HUGE technological advantages.

I think we are just in the beginning of this age, therefore still seeing remains of the last age in the evangelics. Nothing surprising about that ... the remains of the last age will probably stay with us for a while, while we dawn into the next age and learn to walk in our new Aquarian shoes.

But I do adore how mankind seems to be moving away from religion and towards freedom of information, embracing the internet, and freedom from religious restraints, freedom for sexuality, freedom from marriage, all kinds of freedoms and independence. Educational systems (schools) have mostly been segregated from religion (not all the way, but we are well on our way).
I also adore the Aquarian quality of such fast advances in technology that we've seen in just the last century. It is enormous!

To add just another Aquarian quality of our times. People are moving away from attachments towards detachment. We see that in how people, friends and families do not actually meet and socialize as much. They have moved into communication through technology and psychologists and sociologist have already said this is "worrying" since it has become so blatantly obvious and they think it is unhealthy. I do not know if it is necessarily unhealthy, but I do see the Aquarian quality of that.