sign influences

March 23, 2010

Therese sent

In India they use the nakshatras to help define signs. At different times

on this forum we've hashed over where sign influences might be coming from

in either zodiac. I'm leaning toward the stars. But from the tropical point

of view which does not consider the stars, what is the theoretical source

of influence of the signs? We have the ecliptic and 30 degree sign

divisions measured from the vernal equinox. Where do the various sign

influences come from?

----------

I happen to believe that the universe is not a place with things in it, but

consists of thought. It's a mind at

work, and that mind is either the mind of God, or the collective mind of

humanity, or

maybe both. That's the only model which fits what I'm finding. We

(collectively) may be assigning meanings to segments of

the sky, and by doing so, may actually be creating their effects.

--------

I didn't mean to make this a zodiac discussion especially. But I am very

interested in **what** causes the sky-equinox difference over the

centuries. Earth wobble or solar system movement? That's the key question

that eventually would have ramifications for astrology.

---------------

What ramifications? I'm curious - what difference do you think it would

make?

I'm coming at it from the opposite direction; I've amassed a ton of data and

examples and am trying to find patterns that make sense. And I have found

patterns - but it's too late to tell you about them now -

It's 4 AM. Gotta crash. Let's do more of this good stuff tomorrow!

Love, Diana

Website: http://ye-stars.com <http://ye-stars.com/>

March 23, 2010

Diana wrote:

>I happen to believe that the universe is not a place with things in it, but

>consists of thought. It's a mind at

>work, and that mind is either the mind of God, or the collective mind of

>humanity, or

>maybe both. That's the only model which fits what I'm finding. We

>(collectively) may be assigning meanings to segments of

>the sky, and by doing so, may actually be creating their effects.

Hear, hear...there is great wisdom in these thoughts, wisdom that can

potentially dissolve many differences between apparently different

schools of astrology.

Maybe there just aren't so many fixed facts in astrology, just

different ways of seeing, or nodes of conceptual convergence, each of

which do their job of reinforcing a particular school of thought to

work in certain way by repeatedly assigning certain meanings to

astrological configurations. This can indeed be the mechanism that

empowers them to act effectively. Thus, repeating application keeps

reinforcing the observed astrological mechanism that seem to give

meaning to events. (Could we also introduce a bit of Rupert Sheldrake

here?)

Human mind, collective and individual, (both linked with even greater

'minds' of greater systems / wholes) must have a lot to do with ways

astrology seems to work. 12 interdependent, consecutive principles

_can_ be mapped on more circles and from more starting points than

just one. Different circles and different starting points do determine

what we might be looking at and in what manner, but none of them can

be elevated to an absolute position. Thus, the big question is not

which zodiac is the correct one or whether one or the other exists at

all. These are thinking modes of the past. Astrology is no Newtonian

science, where such suppositions are applicable. Instead, there is

Mind everywhere mysteriously partaking in creating apparent

astrological phenomena. In this sphere of astrological perception 'we'

are not other than 'the planets'. Outside this sort of inclusive

perception, many things astrological probably cannot be 'explained' at

all. What we need, as a collective, is a leap of consciousness to

catch and include (maybe once more) the dimensions, where astrologer's

mind is more consciously united with his various 'tools', even though

at present this approach may lie pretty much outside of the box of

many astrologers' way of thinking.

Risto Vartiainen

March 24, 2010

At 04:08 AM 3/23/2010 -0400, Diana wrote:

>I happen to believe that the universe is not a place with things in it, but

>consists of thought. It's a mind at work, and that mind is either the

>mind of God, or the collective mind of

>humanity, or maybe both. That's the only model which fits what I'm

>finding. We

>(collectively) may be assigning meanings to segments of the sky, and by

>doing so, may actually be creating their effects.

----------------------------

So (if I understand correctly) you're saying that it's our thoughts that

have " created " what we observe to be signs of the zodiac? Our thoughts have

created sign polarity, the triplicities, etc?? If the earth had no human

beings, those meanings wouldn't be there? Are you saying that the thoughts

of Alan Leo and Charles Carter were so powerful that the ecliptic itself

responded by attaching meanings to the divisions of signs? (Because prior

to that many of today's sign meanings didn't exist or at least we didn't

know about them.)

Of course there is actually nothing solid in the universe as the physicists

tell us. Matter is only energy that can be transformed into another type of

energy.

Therese wrote:

>But I am very interested in **what** causes the sky-equinox difference

>over the

>centuries. Earth wobble or solar system movement? That's the key question

>that eventually would have ramifications for astrology.

>

Diana wrote:

>What ramifications? I'm curious - what difference do you think it would

>make?

I'll get back to this topic in the evening when I have more computer time.

Therese

March 24, 2010

Greetings All,

I am a rookie astrologer compared to many on this list. My primary appreciation

of astrology orbits around Financial Astrology. With that said, I believe that

what Diana wrote about everything being a thought or a process of thought was

both beautiful and accurate. I have no way to prove that everything is thought;

however, I am a betting man of sorts and my bet is on the notion that it is

true. Some Financial Astrologers work under the impression that the past and the

future are both present in the now. If this is true, then it seems to me that

the one harmonically related carrier present in the mix of manifestations past,

present, and future is God. Additionally, humans, planets, and the stars are all

thoughts of God, but because we are harmonically related to the carrier wave of

God, we too are participating in the creation of all that is. So humans think,

Earth thinks, Jupiter thinks, etc., and we are all thought dancing this cosmic

dance.

Randy (The Frequency Fisherman)

" The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that

which is done is that which shall be done: And there is no new

thing under the sun. "

Ecclesiastes 1:9

________________________________

Therese Hamilton <eastwest

Tue, March 23, 2010 7:56:07 PM

Re: sign influences

At 04:08 AM 3/23/2010 -0400, Diana wrote:

>I happen to believe that the universe is not a place with things in it, but

>consists of thought. It's a mind at work, and that mind is either the

>mind of God, or the collective mind of

>humanity, or maybe both. That's the only model which fits what I'm

>finding. We

>(collectively) may be assigning meanings to segments of the sky, and by

>doing so, may actually be creating their effects.

------------ --------- -------

So (if I understand correctly) you're saying that it's our thoughts that

have " created " what we observe to be signs of the zodiac? Our thoughts have

created sign polarity, the triplicities, etc?? If the earth had no human

beings, those meanings wouldn't be there? Are you saying that the thoughts

of Alan Leo and Charles Carter were so powerful that the ecliptic itself

responded by attaching meanings to the divisions of signs? (Because prior

to that many of today's sign meanings didn't exist or at least we didn't

know about them.)

Of course there is actually nothing solid in the universe as the physicists

tell us. Matter is only energy that can be transformed into another type of

energy.

Therese wrote:

>But I am very interested in **what** causes the sky-equinox difference

>over the

>centuries. Earth wobble or solar system movement? That's the key question

>that eventually would have ramifications for astrology.

>

Diana wrote:

>What ramifications? I'm curious - what difference do you think it would

>make?

I'll get back to this topic in the evening when I have more computer time.

Therese

March 24, 2010

Correct, Randy. " God is all there is. " In eastern thought, all the entire

manifested universes, including ourselves are only thoughts in the mind of

God. But as human beings, we have the special spark of God within us that

allows for free will and consciously forging a path home to unity with the

Divine.

And yes, there is no time or space. Everything is in the NOW. In the mind

of the Creator time and space don't exist. But our perspective is linear

because we lack cosmic consciousness.

But " Earth thinks, Jupiter thinks, etc. That's not quite getting it. God

thinks. Humanity thinks. Physical bodies (planets, etc.) exist, but don't

have the power to create with thoughts. Edgar Cayce said, " Thoughts are

things. " Their strength is determined by the thinker.

So where do zodiac influences come from? Perhaps eons ago advanced minds

channeling cosmic thought placed the stars and constellations in their

particular position in relation to our earth. There is an Edgar Cayce

reading that lets us know that the 12 zodiac constellations were known

around 10,000 B.C.

Thanks for your post!

Therese

At 06:39 PM 3/23/2010 -0700, Randy wrote:

>Greetings All,

>

>I am a rookie astrologer compared to many on this list. My primary

>appreciation of astrology orbits around Financial Astrology. With that

>said, I believe that what Diana wrote about everything being a thought or

>a process of thought was both beautiful and accurate. I have no way to

>prove that everything is thought; however, I am a betting man of sorts and

>my bet is on the notion that it is true. Some Financial Astrologers work

>under the impression that the past and the future are both present in the

>now. If this is true, then it seems to me that the one harmonically

>related carrier present in the mix of manifestations past, present, and

>future is God. Additionally, humans, planets, and the stars are all

>thoughts of God, but because we are harmonically related to the carrier

>wave of God, we too are participating in the creation of all that is. So

>humans think, Earth thinks, Jupiter thinks, etc., and we are all thought

>dancing this cosmic dance.

March 24, 2010

>>I happen to believe that the universe is not a place with things in it, but

>>consists of thought. It's a mind at work, and that mind is either the

>>mind of God, or the collective mind of

>>humanity, or maybe both. That's the only model which fits what I'm

>>finding. We

>>(collectively) may be assigning meanings to segments of the sky, and by

>>doing so, may actually be creating their effects.

>----------------------------

>So (if I understand correctly) you're saying that it's our thoughts that

>have " created " what we observe to be signs of the zodiac? Our thoughts have

>created sign polarity, the triplicities, etc?? If the earth had no human

>beings, those meanings wouldn't be there? Are you saying that the thoughts

>of Alan Leo and Charles Carter were so powerful that the ecliptic itself

>responded by attaching meanings to the divisions of signs? (Because prior

>to that many of today's sign meanings didn't exist or at least we didn't

>know about them.)

It is not " the ecliptic itself " that attaches meaning to its parts. " Meanings "

are a human creation. The expression " we are creating the effects " means that we

are projecting these meanings on the reality we perceive and mistakenly call

them " effects " . These humanly created meanings are a-priori conventions or

assumptions that in practice work as a classification system: the signs of the

zodiac is a system of categories, a mental grid that we superimpose on reality

in order to classify it and interpret it, i.e., they are a tool or aid used in

the mental process of establishing or creating meaning in the reality we

perceive. Astrologers do not deal with the possible effects of the zodiac or of

the stars on earth or on human nature, what they do is USE the astrological code

--consisting of a system of conventions-- as A TOOL through which reality is

classified, analyzed, and interpreted. The " meanings " of the zodiacal signs are

a simple convention, like the categories of a language, they ere not out there

in nature and are not " an effect " , they are a human creation.

Juan

March 24, 2010

I don't think the meanings are a human creation. I do believe when we try to

communicate what we perceive intuitively, from, let's say, the right side of the

brain, and then try to communicate it logically, which uses the left side of the

brain, one would be on a different reference point as soon as we convey our

opinions. It is hard to communicate the " full picture " of what we perceive

intuitively, with logic, because varying areas of the brain is used from

perception to communication. It is almost like trying to communicate what

somebody else saw. So, we can only guess at the verity of it, or whether they

are perceiving something symbolic, or tangible, or a combimation of both, a

blurring of the lines.

liberator_9

--- On Wed, 3/24/10, Juan Revilla <jarevilla wrote:

Juan Revilla <jarevilla

Re: Re: sign influences

Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 2:43 AM

Â

>>I happen to believe that the universe is not a place with things in it, but

>>consists of thought. It's a mind at work, and that mind is either the

>>mind of God, or the collective mind of

>>humanity, or maybe both. That's the only model which fits what I'm

>>finding. We

>>(collectively) may be assigning meanings to segments of the sky, and by

>>doing so, may actually be creating their effects.

>----------- --------- --------