Arena wrote: 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.
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.