Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Therese sent All the new nakshatra books I've seen are STILL listing the old out-of-place stars with today's 27 mansions. Makes me want to scream. -------- The stars aren't out of place, the mansions are! Those determinant stars were the basis of the mansions' " vibes " ! That's what I meant when I complained about the mansions being set up with standardized pre-set borders. Whatever borders are chosen, they absolutely should contain the determinants! Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? What did you mean by " old out-of-place stars " ? Leaving Antares outside the borders of Jyestha is like crowning a queen and then shoving her out into the cold! Antares is an absolutely beautiful, magnificent, powerful star, and to my way of thinking, where Antares is, Jyestha is, whatever boundaries you want to set around it. The ancients didn't have the means to be very tight with degrees-and-minutes; they chose certain outstanding stars or star groups and pointed and said " that's Krittika, that's Rohini, etc. Those brilliant, distinctive stars were the deciding factor for the establishment of each nakshatra, not some theoretical measurement from one point or another. And whatever boundaries they used, those determinant stars were within them, no doubt about that! It's the primary stars that make nakshatras, not nakshatras casually including just any old stars. It's like, Antares is the " soul " of Jyestha, and Aldebaran is the " soul " of Rohini, etc. Ya dig what I mean?? Love, Diana Website: http://ye-stars.com <http://ye-stars.com/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 At 03:53 AM 3/23/2010 -0400, Diana wrote: > >Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? What did you mean by > " old out-of-place stars " ? I meant that the original nakshatra stars are no longer in today's 27 mansions. However, I think it's more than possible that the newer 27-fold division is a " real " lunar zodiac, which differs from the original nakshatras. We're continuing to evolve (believe it or not!), and I see the equal 27-fold division as a valid lunar " zodiac " on its own. Anyone who has used the Jyotish dasas and the mansions in practice knows that these divisions work. So now we have choices: (1) Tropical zodiac (2) Sidereal zodiac (3) 27 Stellar Mansions (4) Stellar and constellational influences including the original nakshatra stars and asterisms in their correct locations. Using the original nakshatra names for the 27 mansions is like the tropical zodiac " borrowing " the constellational names. Both tend to confuse the issue for the uninitiated. Diana, your very entertaining expressive writing style is very Jupiter-Neptune (sidereal Pisces) rather than cut-and-dried military Mars (Aries). So is the massive amount of data and information you've packed into your book. This is how sidereal Pisces would express. All inclusive and expansive. The stellar sky is expansive, is it not? Neptune broke all boundaries--flying over the waves conquering as he flew. (This is why air flight is Neptunian rather than Uranian). Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I dig what you mean. My retrograde Saturn is conjunct Antares/Jyeshta by less than one degree, in the first house, assuming I had the correct info on this fixed star. I am now learning in the past day or two, from this elist that it is open to question. liberator_9 --- On Tue, 3/23/10, Diana K Rosenberg <fixed.stars wrote: Diana K Rosenberg <fixed.stars Mansions/stars Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 2:53 AM Â Therese sent All the new nakshatra books I've seen are STILL listing the old out-of-place stars with today's 27 mansions. Makes me want to scream. -------- The stars aren't out of place, the mansions are! Those determinant stars were the basis of the mansions' " vibes " ! That's what I meant when I complained about the mansions being set up with standardized pre-set borders. Whatever borders are chosen, they absolutely should contain the determinants! Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? What did you mean by " old out-of-place stars " ? Leaving Antares outside the borders of Jyestha is like crowning a queen and then shoving her out into the cold! Antares is an absolutely beautiful, magnificent, powerful star, and to my way of thinking, where Antares is, Jyestha is, whatever boundaries you want to set around it. The ancients didn't have the means to be very tight with degrees-and- minutes; they chose certain outstanding stars or star groups and pointed and said " that's Krittika, that's Rohini, etc. Those brilliant, distinctive stars were the deciding factor for the establishment of each nakshatra, not some theoretical measurement from one point or another. And whatever boundaries they used, those determinant stars were within them, no doubt about that! It's the primary stars that make nakshatras, not nakshatras casually including just any old stars. It's like, Antares is the " soul " of Jyestha, and Aldebaran is the " soul " of Rohini, etc. Ya dig what I mean?? Love, Diana Website: http://ye-stars. com <http://ye-stars. com/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Maybe air flight can be both Uranian or Neptunian. It depends on what approach to air travel these planets bring about. Uranus, to my mind, is like a sudden change, like a rocket bursting into orbit (the mind with sudden revelations). Neptune is an inward expansion of our horizons, that isn't jolting, like Uranus can be. Neptune can be subtle, but so are the delusions He can bring when ill placed or aspected. liberator_9 --- On Tue, 3/23/10, Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote: Therese Hamilton <eastwest Re: Mansions/Stars Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 11:34 AM  At 03:53 AM 3/23/2010 -0400, Diana wrote: > >Or am I misunderstanding what you meant? What did you mean by > " old out-of-place stars " ? I meant that the original nakshatra stars are no longer in today's 27 mansions. However, I think it's more than possible that the newer 27-fold division is a " real " lunar zodiac, which differs from the original nakshatras. We're continuing to evolve (believe it or not!), and I see the equal 27-fold division as a valid lunar " zodiac " on its own. Anyone who has used the Jyotish dasas and the mansions in practice knows that these divisions work. So now we have choices: (1) Tropical zodiac (2) Sidereal zodiac (3) 27 Stellar Mansions (4) Stellar and constellational influences including the original nakshatra stars and asterisms in their correct locations. Using the original nakshatra names for the 27 mansions is like the tropical zodiac " borrowing " the constellational names. Both tend to confuse the issue for the uninitiated. Diana, your very entertaining expressive writing style is very Jupiter-Neptune (sidereal Pisces) rather than cut-and-dried military Mars (Aries). So is the massive amount of data and information you've packed into your book. This is how sidereal Pisces would express. All inclusive and expansive. The stellar sky is expansive, is it not? Neptune broke all boundaries-- flying over the waves conquering as he flew. (This is why air flight is Neptunian rather than Uranian). Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.