for example, simply knowing that a star in the sky is in fact not where it appears to be,
and from that deduce that therefore, any sort of 'interpretation' based on that star's location,
regardless of who is making that interpretation, and regardless of the system used
if based on what merely appears to the eye, is likely to be off by a few degrees.
Are you talking about precession of the equinox or one or another type of stellar aberration?
It doesn't matter.
As I said, it could be the location of stars and planets, or potatoes randomly scattered across the floor.
The point is, that for any means of determining, say, an auspicious day,
the method of reference (e.g., stars) has to be either the cause
or a coincidental indicator
, meaning that some appearance
of planetary positioning happens at the same time as
Either way, some thing defined as "auspiciousness
" must thus be said to arise.
It must have a cause
and defining characteristics that are not purely arbitrary,
and not purely subjective to the needs of the individual.If the cause (of "auspiciousness") is external to the mind,
then what causes it? A god?
If it is produced by the mind,
then of what consequence are the positions of the stars and planets?
Until a standard for determining "auspiciousness
" is established,
all claims at methods pointing to auspiciousness (or any similar consideration)
would be subjective to the point of being meaningless.
So, not only are the calculations likely to be off,
but what is being determined by them is indeterminable.
Seems to me, It's all just made up.
But, I am open to an explanation of the principle by which astrology is said to function.