Problem interpretation and proposal for solution within the system of sidereal astrology
As we know, the Earth is subject to the effect that any object – like a peg or a whirligig – spun around its own axis of symmetry shows. We can see that its axis moves along the surface of a cone. The movement that the Earth of ’geoid’ shape makes is determined by the Moon periods of about 18.6 years together with the torque of the Sun and the planets orbiting on planes not coinciding with that of the ecliptic. (Picture 1)
In this complicated system the cycles can’t be equally long. In an interval of thousands of years it is self-evident for the actual axial skew of about 23.5 degrees to change and to take a measure between 22° and 24.5° in tens of thousand of years. The intersections of the Ecliptic and the Equator (the Spring and Autumn Equinox Points are significant points of reference and we can connect the creation of ’World Ages’ to their progress rhythm. However, their real movement is different from the periodicity, which we know as the symbolic tracts of ’Platonic year’ (25920 years), ’Platonic month’ (2160 years) and ’Platonic day’ (72 years). (Picture 2) Of course, this doesn’t mean to deny the symbolic validity but it makes way to an approach we will need later.
When establishing the framework of sidereal zodiac the astrologer must face a problem that is unknown in the tropical astrology: where to start the zodiac of equal (30°) sidereal sectors? It is because the ’seasonal cross’ doesn’t exist for the sidereal astrologer; that is the cusps of cardinal signs designated in the most accurate way by the equinoctial and the solsticial points.
In the sidereal zodiac, the 0° of the sign Aries – which would be situated ’somewhere’ around the constellation of Aries – is not necessarily the starting point. Sidereal astrologer can take the beginning of any zodiacal sections as starting point – and we can’t take any of them at the same time – because of its pure ’uranicity’ (‘Jyotisha’ meaning Light) this system doesn’t contain the ’cyclic drama’ and doesn’t follow the permanent rituals of Birth / Prosperity / Decline / Death, which we are obliged to experience every year – in succession of the seasons, within the tropical framework.
Accordingly the sidereal aspect needs some reference entity – it is known as ’fiducial point’ – to measure the equal 12 sectors from. In Cyrill Fagan and Donald A. Bradley’s system this is two at once as they assigned for this aim a ’celestial axis’ marked out by stars of ’top priority’ – the axis of the Aldebaran and Antares, which face each other with a difference of few arc minutes. These stars are situated in the very centres of the Taurus and Scorpio constellations according to more archaic astrological tradition, thus the solution is obvious for them: the Aldebaran must be put to the 15° of the 30-degree-long sidereal sector of Taurus. (Although, the Aldebaran is located a few arc minutes away in their system. )
This way we can draw all the 12 sidereal sectors, we can find the sidereal 0°of the Aries. As the Spring Equinoctial Point (tropical 00 of Aries in the northern hemisphere) is basically always generally known, we can get an important reference point of time: this is the exact coexistence of the two zodiacs, which is – by the spring equinox receding into the 30-degree-long sidereal Pisces – the starting point of the ’Pisces Age’ at the same time. (Picture 3)
At this point we must see a new technical term: ’ayanamsha’, which means ’the measure of progress’ in Sanskrit. This number gives – in arc degrees, arc minutes and arc seconds – the difference of the Aries points between the two zodiacs. In other words, it shows the distance (in arc degrees / minutes / seconds) of the tropical Aries 0 point’s moving back from sidereal Aries. It means that when saying: ayanamsha 0 (ayanamsha zero) or ayanamsha =0°, then the zodiacs coincide exactly. But when the numeric value of ayanamsha = 30°, then the spring equinox is just about to enter the sidereal Aquarius.
The ayanamsha 0 happened in 221 AD in Fagan-Bradley’s system, while in the N. C. Lahiri’s sidereal zodiac (which is, these days, perhaps the most popular system of Jyotisha astrology and the official base of setting the religious holidays in India since 1955) in 285 AD. Nevertheless, not everyone – nor the author of these lines – can accept that Lahiri places his primary ’fiducial star’, the Spica (Citra) to the 0° of sidereal Libra (in contrast with the last degree of the Virgo by Fagan). (Picture 4)
Making a calendar, it might be a comfortable idea to consider this star of outstanding importance as the beginning of the sidereal Libra, but it is completely unacceptable from a spiritual point of view, since it manifests as undeniable part of Virgo’s astral principle. Those must be right, who argue that there is not a word about ’Libra-Spica’ in Surya Siddhanta, the basic work of Hindu astrology, which Lahiri also refers to. Anyway, the Lahiri zodiac has had some (slightly modified) versions since then – reflecting the problems that arise.
But there are much more ’precipitous’ systems that suppose an even later date for ayanamsha = 0°. Despite the fact that these sidereal zodiacs should be classified as ’nonsense’ at first sight, there are some who evaluate the sidereal horoscopes in such ’patterns’. They do so certainly because they never took the trouble to ’visualise’ the contellation background.
A good example for it is the system attributed to Hipparchus, which is quite popular in some astrologer groups. Hipparchus was an excellent astronomer and philosoper of his time. Not only did he make a star catalogue, which is considered as reference base up to this day, but he was the first in Europe to write about the phenomenon of precession so it is certain that he had solid astrological knowledge – like all astronomers in those days. Accordingly it is completely inconceivable that he created such a ’freak zodiac’.
For the interpretation we need a technical term: the ’marker star’. To refine it the author of these lines proposes another distinction: let’s distinguish ’primary marker star’ and ’secondary marker star’. Primary marker star is the astrologically most significant star of the given constellation, which is the brightest one there at the same time in the vast majority of cases. We consider secondary marker star the one that is less important than the primary marker star on the base of astrological traditions, but yet this star (star-cluster or group of stars) markedly manifests the essence of the given constellation.
Our point is clean and clear: the primary marker star of a given constellation never can get out of the 30-degree-sector of the given astral quality, that is it can not slide into any adjacent sidereal sector. What is more, we also should make sure when making sections that the ’secondary markers’ positions must be similarly ’positioned’ – as far as the astronomical facts make it possible.
Let’s see what happens on the sky when we put the date of the ’0 ayanamsha’ in 545 AD, and this way the entrance (i.e. regression) of Spring Equinox in the section of sidereal Aquarius gets as late as 2697 AD! (Picture 5)
Starting from the constellation of Leo, we can see that the Regulus is absolutely correctly kept inside its sidereal section, but the Denebola – considered as secondary marker at the ’tail of Leo’ – is passed on to the Virgo. We are not very happy about it, but we do not classify this as an untenable disability of the system yet. This way this secondary ’Leo-marker’ goes to the Virgo, which lets its own ’primary marker star’ get into the sidereal section of Libra, on the other hand. The least we can say that it is scandalous but Lahiri has similar solution so let’s go on. The Libra’s markers commendably stay inside their section.
The Antares of the Scorpio is right, but the stars of ’the tail’ together with the Shaula and Lesath, the actual ’Venom Sting’ – considered as star group the ’secondary marker’ of this constellation – ’passed on’ to the sidereal section of Sagittarius. (Anyway, this is common weakness of all popular sectioning.) Sagittarius is all right, but the Deneb Algedi on the ’tail’ of Capricorn slides into sidereal Aquarius, although we think that it is a ’secondary marker’ here. Aquarius partly ’covers’ Capricorn constellaton in the sky so when mapping to Ecliptic, one sector boundary must be violated inevitably. Although it is more reasonable for the dividing intention to ’save’ the principle of Capricorn, this discerption is still justifiable and permissible.
The constellation of Pisces is generously ’sacrificed’, as usually in most sidereal sectioning. Its ’most valuable’ part together with the primary marker star Alrescha (which is, in fact, the meeting point of the two ’ribbons’ or ’ropes’) is passed on to the section of Aries. At least this latter does not suffer any harm like the Taurus does not either, for which we can be satisfied with the position of both the Pleiades and Aldebaran. (Its horns getting in the section of Gemini we don’t take too strictly because in Egyptian zodiacs the Taurus is looking in just the opposite direction…..)
But what is really unacceptable, the primary markers of Gemini constellation, Castor and Pollux transferring into the sidereal section of Cancer…… Well, such an untenable situation is generated by ’pushing too far ahead’ in time the date of ’0 ayanamsha’, probably not even thinking about the problem. We think that this attitude not only makes sidereal astrology frivolous but also eliminates it.
For the author of this treatise, the only acceptable sectioning is the one that keeps all ’marker stars’ in their own sidereal equal sectors. So we need a sidereal zodiac where Alrescha, the primary marker star of the Pisces, stays in the sidereal section of Pisces, furthermore all the ’tail-stars’ of the constellation Scorpio are positioned in their own sidereal sector. At the same time we can not go back in time beyond a certain limit to fix ’0 ayanamsha’ as we must take care that the Regulus can not ’slide’ into the sidereal section of Cancer. On first approach ’0 ayanamsha’ could not happen earlier than 156 BC. If it happened in this year, the Regulus, the most important fiducial star of the sidereal system we proposed, would stand on 0° of sidereal Leo ’on tick’.
But the real situation is more complicated than that. Just because we want to save the Regulus in its dignity, it can not be put ’on tick’ to the 0° of its own sidereal sector. Why? – As a matter of fact, what we know about the relation of tropical and sidereal zodiacs that is about the so-called ’Fixed stars’ movements of forward direction in the tropical zodiac, due to the receding motion of Spring Equinox – is only slice of it, not the whole truth.
This is the time to refer back to the problem that the length of World Ages (Platonic Months) is actually different from the ’ideal’. Because when studying the celestial mechanics we must experience that nothing is ’round’ and regularly recurring. It is inevitable that everything in the Universe is moving and changing – so what seems to be constant and fixed over a lifetime, is not that on the scale of World Ages. As we are thinking in perspectives of this latter one, it is important to know that the ’Fixed Stars’ do not stand still either, but have their ’self-movement’.
Our central star, the Sun, moves towards a certain point of the Universe (at an approximate speed of ~14 km/sec). Its planets orbiting around can be considered as objects presenting a spiral motion pattern – from a hypothetical ’distant, external point of view’. The direction of movement aims at a point in the constellation of Hercules, to the south-west under the constellation of Lyra, called ’Solar Apex’ – mainly in astronomical contexts. (Its tropical position mapped to Ecliptic is now 2° 26’ of Capricorn).
What is essential here for us: the stars, examined over large time horizons, change their position both in ecliptical longitude and latitude depending on their distance from Earth and their position in relation to Ecliptic. This change can be very considerable in the time of a ’Platonic month’ (cca. 2160 years); in case of Regulus e.g. more than 8 arc minutes retrograde direction expressed in ecliptical longitude. (Just for comparison: both Aldebaran and Antares have their own self-movement of less than 1 arc minute expressed in ecliptical longitude during a Platonic month’s interval.)
It is clear now that Regulus can not be put in 0° 0’ 0’’ of sidereal section of Leo at the date of ’0 ayanamsha’ because watching it after a ’Platonic Month’ we would see Cor Leonis, the primary marker of Leo principle, staying in 29° 51’ of Cancer sidereal sector; and the unsuspicious spectator would be really amazed: how it could happen to a ’Fixed Star’ in its declared fix framework?
This is why the author of this treatise in his sidereal system puts Regulus as his chosen ’fiducial star’ at 0° 16’ of sidereal Leo in the date of ’0 ayanamsha’. Because of this it would „leave” its fixed sector after 2000 years from our present time, around the end of ’Age of Aquarius’. But we don’t have to deal with that anymore, because the all-consuming ’pralaya-forces’ would disrupt the cognitive functions to a level that all the consciousness of the ’human world’ will cease to exist – so there would be no more ’problems’ at all.
As the result of those written above, the precise coincidence of the tropical and sidereal zodiacs must have happened in 138 BC, we suppose (Picture 6), therefore the beginning of the Aquarius era will happen in 2020, at the time of winter solstice (Picture 7).
It must be emphasized that in defining such ’entrance dates’ there will always be some ’symbolic’ elements as these are not more than ’index-dates’. Then how did we get to this result? Our most important principle is to keep the marker stars inside their own sidereal sector and this rule defined an interval for the ’0 ayanamsha’ event: it could not happen earlier than 138 BC (because of the Regulus problem expounded above) and could not happen later than 111 BC either (because in that case, the Alrescha, the primary marker of the Pisces principle, would have been passed into the sidereal sector of Aries.) As a consequnce of all these, the entrance of Spring equinox into the Aquarius sidereal sector must happen sometime between 2020 and 2044.
First we looked for some confirming-activating astrological event and found the Great Conjunction, which takes place at a time very close to Winter Solstice additionally, to be properly marked; and it defined for us the exact date of the ayanamsha 0, as well.
Either the specific date of Winter Solstice in 2020, or the „Golden Conjunction” itself, not to say the exact date(s) of Pluto entering in the tropical Aquarius (2023-2024) may serve as a basis to ’index horoscopes’ to define the beginning of sidereal Aquarius age. What is more, actually any emblematic astrological events up until 2044 as index date would set an ayanamsha = 30° date that would be absolutely acceptable for us.
Overall we can say that by accepting Regulus = 0 Leo ayanamsha we could only win as a result of three reasons. First, all the 12 zodiac qualities could keep their own essential dignity in the sidereal sectioning, too, by having their important constellation markers in the adequate sidereal sector. Secondly, we could get a fiducial star that is the best we could find; it is not only because of its primus inter pares royal quality but its positioning, as well. It is namely the marker star located the nearest to the ecliptic and it was standing right on the Ecliptic in around 5000 BC and its own shift, in ecliptical latitude, is still less than 30 arc minutes, so it does not reach the average diameter length of the Moon disc. Thirdly, but not least, this system offers the chance to put the beginning of Aquarius Age (ayanamsha = 30°) sometime between 2020 and 2044 and this would add appropriate ’reading’ to the specific world history events of our days. It’s hard not to see that we’re going through a transition (of Ages) and this would be accompanied by an appropriate astrological indication, rather close in time to the famed Mayan forecast of 2012.
As for tne problem of ayanamsha 0 in 138 BC, well, we can conclude that it was inside Hipparchus’ lifetime. We find it very realistic that the Greek philisopher who analyzed the phenomenon of precision so persistently – put the coincidence of the tropical and sidereal zodiac on this or a very close date, instead of one almost 700 years later.
Furthermore, at that time some remarkable works of Fine Art emerge ’out of thin air’, which show the figure of a fish-fined Centaur-like creature. How could we explain the appearance of this hybrid creature – called Ichthyocentaur – more witfully than by theorizing the spiritual artistic sensitivity that reflects the Spring Equinox and Winter Solstice positioned in the sidereal Pisces and Sagittarius? (picture 8)
(to be continued)