Some astrological comments

[Guest guest]

Dear List Members:

 

It is very ironic, that a person like me, who claims to be a very critical

student and practitioner of astrology, has to come here in its apparent defense

..

 

But I am really suprised by the nature of some assertions that had been done

here lately, specially if they are done by people who apparently believe in or

at least give the impression they know something about astrology.

 

I was surprised to find the following interrogation: " what is the difference

between mars at 29 " 55 of capricorn and mars at 00:01 acuarius " ?

 

If I am not wrong this question was formulated by a person,Ed Kohout, who

insists that only aspects between planets matter and that it is completely

irrelevant the signs or houses they are placed on( an arguement shared by

Starman?).

 

So far I am surprised that nobody has been able to explain why it there should

be a difference,and a significative one, IF (in capittal letters) astrology

really works.

 

The first thing I should remind him is that astrology , by definition, is not

uni-dimensional and consequently it is not based on a single factor.

 

No body, apart from a quack or a very dumb person , could be able to say that

just by the position of a single planet in a certain place, that he will be able

to predict an event or even to make an assumption about a person.

 

It is a tricky question because all the different astrology schools I had

studied, insist on the need of making a complete(yes, complete) chart for the

most exact moment of birth and at the place where you were born.

 

And almost all schools are based on the use of the planets and signs and houses.

 

I understand there are some other esoterical schools, that line up more with

voodo, and insist that signs and houses are irrelevant, but since I always try

my feet do not lift from the ground, I had never studied them nor is my

intention to waist one minute of my life reading about masonic, " the seven rays "

of Bailey or other abstruse theories.

 

One of the things that had always worried me is the incapacity of most

astrological systems to explain why astrological twins, born just 5 minutes

apart, can live so different lifes. And this is one of the reasons I quitted

tropical astrology. But it is not the main reason. Other day I will come back to

this.

 

It is completely silly to believe , as western astrologers do, that mankind can

be divided in just 12 archetypes according to the month you are born in. No

matter if you were born on july 23 or on august 22, they will put on you the

label of " leonine " and will start reciting that repetive mantra of: you are

fiery, proud, interested in status, you hunger for attention,blah-blah,etc.

 

Hindu astrology works completely different. Even before the use of solar signs

or at least parallel to it, as they were a lunar culture, they had subdivided

the sky in nakshatras or lunar mansions. This is the approximate space traveled

by the moon in a day,of 13 degrees and 20 seconds. So a planet is under the

influence of the ruler of the sign but also it is colored its influence by the

ruler of the nakshatra.

 

This agrees with common sense. Because we should expect to find differences, as

shown in real life,between those born on the different degrees of a sign. Or do

you think all the leos are equal, as tropical do?

 

As it is logical to suppose, these nakshatras have different lords, and

consequently planets are subject to also the influence of its lord. There are

schools who even go further, subdividing the nakshatras into padas of just 3

degrees.

 

As I said in a previous posting, one of the postulates of astrology is that the

planets represent certain archetypes, but ONLY the signs and houses can show the

difference in its quality and specially on the domain of life where they will

allegedly act.

 

To show some correspondence with human events, planets must show differences in

the way they act, otherwise we would never be able to distinguish and to

determine the differences in experiences persons have although born in the same

hour of the day.

 

Since real life does indicate there is a difference in life experiences, the

model we choose must take in account the possibility of letting us to find the

difference.

 

If we disregard houses or signs, we will be condemned to make universal

assumptions that will be completely spurious.

 

For example, let`s consider the silly statement made by someone recently saying

that " jupiter rising is a favorable element regardless of the sign and zodiac " ??

 

Can you believe and accept that? That is a ludicrous and preposterous

statement. There are many criminals like Dennis Nielsen(exact conjunction with

the ascendant), Vanzetty (member of the duo Sacco-Vanzetti), Desire

Landru,etc,etc) who were born with that placement, apart from millions of

drug-addicts, lepers,home-less, etc.

 

By trying to eliminate houses and signs, they preconize worst systems of

evaluating a chart!

 

Ethimologically, house is associated with a place where you live and where you

" reign " . Even in sanskrit, bhava, a synonym for house, means a " field of

action " .

 

If we have no way to link a planet to an specific action or an event, how can we

will be able to find the area of action?

 

In regard to the strength of the planets,let me inform you that hindu astrology

does not give full weight to the sign position of the planet.

 

The influence of the planet is greatly disturbed or enhanced according to the

planetary aspects it receives and specially by whom. The latter has never been

considered in western astrology.

 

And what is more important, apart from the positional strength, for example, by

occupying capricorn in the case of mars, it has to be analyzed the directional

strenght(planets in angular houses), the natural and temporal srength and

finally the motional strength.

 

The divisional charts have to be considered also because a planet strong in the

natal chart but weak in the navamsa, will not bestow all the good results

initially thought.

 

I think that again Ed and Starman tried to gave the false impression that there

are a lot of schools in India, just as it happens in the west. They even alluded

to the allegedly many ayanamsas. Well, that is completely false.

 

The majority of hindu astrologers work with the lahiri ayanamsa and there are

some few, including myself, that work with Krishnamurthy`s. But the difference

is just of approximately 15 minutes, practically insignificant.

 

And what is more important almost all give the same meanings to the planets and

to the houses. So if you want to find a community of astrologers that share a

basic creed , you already found it: the hindu astrologers.

 

And please remember that Fagan is not hindu and his ayanamsa is used exclusively

by the western siderealists. There is a difference in the division of the zodiac

by the 2 schools and also in the meaning of some houses.

 

But in general, I think there are more points of union than of disagreement,

otherwise I would not had joined this list. This is not an indirect to anybody.

 

I would firmly recommend to Kohout, who claims is a journalist and to Starman,

to try to be better informed before adventuring in saying things about something

they ignore completely, as is hindu astrology.

 

And frankly, I do not matter at all if Kohout, Starman, or any other

list-member, believes or not in astrology or in the sidereal zodiac. They have

all the right to do it or not. And I will never quarrell with them or any other

because of such untrascendental matters.

 

But it is my firm recommendation to those who discard the sidereal zodiac, with

all the flaws and limitations that astrology has, as I am the first to

recognize, please do not degrade it more, by recommending the introduction of

more bizarre and abstruse concepts,such as masonic astrology.

 

You should try first and work with the sidereal zodiac. And if you are not

satisfied with it, then you should end your relationship with astrology.

 

Because, if astrology is not valid with the sidereal zodiac, then astrology is a

complete illusive and illusory discipline and we all had lost our time studying

it.

 

Since I try to write on a monthly basis, until next time.

 

Alfonso Osorio

 

 

 

P.S: It would be advisable that if somebody uses the mechanism of reply, at

least should try to erase or delete what the others had said previously. There

are many kilometric emails that include what had been said weeks before and what

is worst, most of the late postings lack of any astrological content. In my case

I have to use the delete button very frequently.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now