Golden Dawn Star Maps

I made a new thread because I am STILL trying to get my head around this and I wanted to try a discussion that is just about trying to understand the basic premises in that system. (Not obscure beiginings in time secret masters or other wonder filled subjects and red herrings).

(and sorry if I go really slow and dumb)

If we divide a map up it is usually in 2 axis; up/down (latitude), sideways (longitude).

Usually, for astronomical and astrological maps (ie. the grid reference system used on the map - latitude and longitude) the longitude starts with 0 degrees set at the equinoctal point and latutude is measured from 0 degrees, an extension of the earth's equator, projected out onto the star map to make the celestial equator.

In the GD system the 0 deg. longitude is set on the ecliptic (or very near to it) by a star, Regulus, which marks 0 deg Leo (for this system) where their zodiac starts (not 0 deg Aries), and their latitude starts at 0 deg as the path of the ecliptic.

Am I right so far?

As Scion pointed out this system seems to eliminate the tilt of the earth. (Thanks for that S, as...) I think I have been percieving it all A-about. I have been seeing the ecliptic geocentrically, thinking it is the ecliptic that is off set, but it isnt as the ecliptic represents the plane or disc of the Solar System and it is the tilt of the earth that is tilted (DHUUURRR!).

If I am still right (?) that indicates to me that this system looks at things from the viewpoint of the Solar System ... or the Sun, it is heliocentric ( ? and if it is it would seem to make sense for a group like the GD).

So that means that the GD NCP (North Celestial Pole) is that point 180 deg. above the plane of the ecliptic or the plane of the solar system? Is that right?

And if it is, is that where this GD theory of the rotations around the NCP comes from?

I think I'll leave it at that for the moment ... awaitng your feedback to see if I understand the basic set up of this system or I am still a muddled up old .....

Okay ... THAT appears to be a taboo subject.

I may be making some headway ... a friend just returned a book she assumed was mine ('cause who else would own THAT?!) - but it was / is not mine, never seen it before ... anyway its called 'Stella Theology and Masonic Astronomy' ... I'm slogging though it (slightly amusing and out of date) maybe there are some hints in there?

I have no idea where the book emerged from though (and no, there isnt a scrap of paper with an address inserted between the pages of the book of a certain Soror in Germany ).

LOL Not taboo... I'd love to discuss this further, Ravenest. The thing is there is almost complete radio silence on the subject of GD astrology (presumably) because of Regardie's own focus on Qabalah.

Stellar Theology is a good read, if turgid. Though it's only a viewpoint of a mason with a particular axe to grind, if I'm remembering rightly. The entire text is available online if you dig, which would make it easier to search for terms etc. .

As for heliocentricity, I'm not sure the GD system is heliocentric, it seems to come pretty much from Agrippa and pre-Lilly astrology, which makes it fundamentally geocentric, which is (as John Frawley puts it) spiritually true though inaccurate in terms of scientific trivia. But the tilt has been removedand the globe is treated as a stationary ball. I think Ross talked about this in a great post a while back.

But I'd love to explore this further. It's actually where my head is at the moment.

Scion said:

Stellar Theology is a good read, if turgid. Though it's only a viewpoint of a mason with a particular axe to grind, if I'm remembering rightly. The entire text is available online if you dig, which would make it easier to search for terms etc. .

Click to expand...

I have it as a pdf file: it is available in several places online, just do a search on stellar theology pdf. You can read it online here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/408317/St...-the-origins-of-religions-worldwide-R-H-Brown

It is also available in hard copy as one of those print to order jobs.

ravenest, you have it right in your first post. You're visualizing it right. We can erase the earth entirely, and think just in terms of the poles of the ecliptic, for all intents and purposes (unless you want to think of the constellations and cards in this scheme as governing the regions of the earth below, in which case you have to imagine an earth).

The plane of the ecliptic is effectively identical with the Sun's own equator, so that the poles of the plane of the ecliptic are where the Sun's North and South poles point. That point is the same as the center of the circle traced by the Earth's precessional wobble. There are no bright stars at either the North or South (IIRC) Ecliptic Poles.

You can see it graphically displayed in the image I posted in the other thread - http://www.rosscaldwell.com/images/astronomy/precession.jpg
The "North Ecliptic Pole" is the center of the Earth's precessional wobble, and is the same as the "North Pole of the Zodiac" (i.e. ecliptic pole) in the G.D. paper.

Starting the Zodiac at 0 Leo doesn't change anything but the definition of the starting point; all the Zodiacal constellations are and remain along the ecliptic.

So it's not a heliocentric system per se; it just happens that the pole of the ecliptic and the Sun's poles (because of astronomical necessity) coincide.

(Hipparchus of Rhodes (2nd century b.c.e.) is usually credited with the discovery of precession, and Ptolemy made calculations of it. Agrippa mentions it in bk. II, c. 26 (p. 340 of the Tyson edition), citing Ptolemy's calculation of 1 degree of precession every century (it is actually 1 degree every 72 years)).

Ross

Ah Good, thanks guys. Now I am wondering about this pro (pre?)cession around the north pole and the serpent forluma in GD but I better do a reread first.

Any suggestions as to WHY this system uses this celestial pole and not the one related to the Earths current north pole?

ravenest said:

Ah Good, thanks guys. Now I am wondering about this pro (pre?)cession around the north pole and the serpent forluma in GD but I better do a reread first.

Click to expand...

yes - "pre-" cession. Procession is going forward, precession (preceding) going backward, or depending on your point of view, coming before. Just as 30 Pisces precedes 0 Aries in time, so while we go forward in time the equinoxes go backward to the preceding degree. Thus the term "precession of equinoxes" is shorthand for "the equinoxes preceding one another slowly over time." (thus from 0 Aries the Spring Equinox in 72 years had moved backward to 30 Pisces; then 72 years later to 29 Pisces, etc. until it is around 5 degrees Pisces today).

Any suggestions as to WHY this system uses this celestial pole and not the one related to the Earths current north pole?

Click to expand...

I think it has to do with the symbolism of the Kether point in the Tree of Life Projected on a Solid Sphere. He then says that "the Earth looketh ever unto Binah" - i.e. away from Kether, the hidden, TRUE pole. So the "looketh ever unto Binah" refers to the precession of equinoxes, constantly looking away from the hidden Kether, the unchanging Pole of the Zodiac.

That Draco's tail can be depicted wrapping around this hidden Kether is just icing on the symbolic cake.

Ross

Ross G Caldwell said:

ravenest, you have it right in your first post. You're visualizing it right. We can erase the earth entirely, and think just in terms of the poles of the ecliptic, for all intents and purposes (unless you want to think of the constellations and cards in this scheme as governing the regions of the earth below, in which case you have to imagine an earth).

The plane of the ecliptic is effectively identical with the Sun's own equator, so that the poles of the plane of the ecliptic are where the Sun's North and South poles point. That point is the same as the center of the circle traced by the Earth's precessional wobble. There are no bright stars at either the North or South (IIRC) Ecliptic Poles.

Click to expand...

Ah good ... thanks, I've got that. In a (sort of) way these poles are like the poles of the solar system ... it seems it's sorta a Solar refrenced system.

Ross G Caldwell said:

You can see it graphically displayed in the image I posted in the other thread - http://www.rosscaldwell.com/images/astronomy/precession.jpg
The "North Ecliptic Pole" is the center of the Earth's precessional wobble, and is the same as the "North Pole of the Zodiac" (i.e. ecliptic pole) in the G.D. paper.

Click to expand...

So in a way this pole is like the average position of the earths pole.

Ross G Caldwell said:

Starting the Zodiac at 0 Leo doesn't change anything but the definition of the starting point; all the Zodiacal constellations are and remain along the ecliptic.

Click to expand...

Well, it changes nothing to do with latitudinal measurement but everthing to do with the starting point of measuring longitude and now places that point in the stars themselves and not a crossing of imaginary 'space lines' on a map as tropical or sidereal astrology does [doesnt it? Does sidereal astrology, although moving its 12 x 30deg. segments to be closer aligned with the constellations still have the same measurements but now just moved 28 (or however many) degrees from the equinoctal point? That is, the measurement of degrees in sidereal astrology is still set (although not at 0 deg.) at the equinoctal point?]

Ross G Caldwell said:

So it's not a heliocentric system per se; it just happens that the pole of the ecliptic and the Sun's poles (because of astronomical necessity) coincide.

(Hipparchus of Rhodes (2nd century b.c.e.) is usually credited with the discovery of precession, and Ptolemy made calculations of it. Agrippa mentions it in bk. II, c. 26 (p. 340 of the Tyson edition), citing Ptolemy's calculation of 1 degree of precession every century (it is actually 1 degree every 72 years)).

Ross

Click to expand...

yep, thanks Ross, I understand about precession of the equinoctal point but the next bit I am trying to nut out is how this equinoctal pole is positioned as the earth rotates.

if the equinoctal pole is different from the earth's,pole and the earth's pole stays still (dhurr!) as the earth rotates, then this equinoctal pole must rotate in the sky as the earth's pole stays in place?

is this the dynamic behind the G.D. writings about the different types of rotational patterns of 'the dragon' around the pole (the leaping formula, the flying formula etc.)?