No time for a proper response but pleeeeeese the Da Vinci Code?

Whew! I'm relieved.

Tom

Hi Mark and Tom,

I have to agree that it is a fascinating area of study and one I have spent years researching. I even get to teach it next month which, apart from having to stand up in front of people, I am really looking forward to.

Speaking of the Da Vinci Code, which I read on a flight back from London, there is nothing particularly new in it. This is why the authors of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' one of whom was astrologer Michael Baigent, felt the need to sue Dan Brown. For example, claims such as Mary Magdelene being the wife of Jesus are hundreds of years old. I didn't find anything in it that I hadn't heard before in one form or another. The trouble is that the Catholic Church has done such a job of saying that it is all lies that people will now argue that he made up the organisation Opus Dei. But, of course, I am not suggesting for a minute that anything Dan Brown said was an historically accurate representation of these stories. If people were genuinely interested in some of his stories then they should find out for themselves because there is a lot of information out there. And let's not forget that it is a fictional work.

Are traditional astrologers the equivalent of the Catholic/Orthodox to the moderns rampant individualism/gnosticism?

Mark, at first glance I would have said that it is the other way around. I have read two of Elaine Pagel's works, as I have with Bart Ehrman, and they are both very interesting. There have been claims that Paul was actually a gnostic. I think it was in one of John Shelby Spong's books that I read the argument for this. I think the fourth gospel, that of John, borders on some of these concepts. It surprises me that the people who decided on the four gospels would include John's. But it is as Tom says, there are winners and losers in these arguments and once the winners win they set about erasing any remaining traces of the losing side. The Arian controversy is a classic example.

I would only like to add it wasn't only Da Vinci that painted interesting paintings, Jacopo Bassano's painting in 1542, was another!
www.galleriaborghese.it/borghese/en/eultcena.htm

Apologies in advance. I can't let this go.

And let's not forget that it is a fictional work.

Not according to the author. Oh the little romance story that moves the plot is fictional but Dan Brown on TV shows and on his website insists his book is historically accurate. It isn't even close. It is, as you say based largely on Holy Blood Holy Grail and a book about the Knights Templar whose name escapes me. Both of those have been discredited for years.

It is dishonest for Brown to claim historical accuracy and then hide behind the "It's only fiction," each time one more of his "facts" is shown to be pure bunk.

I'm having a Saturn return soon, so I'm grumpy, and I needed to get some astrology in here.

Tom

Apologies in advance. I can't let this go.

Most likely because you are having a Saturn return. Try living with four planets in Capricorn (including Sun and Saturn) and a Capricorn ascendant. I can never let anything go. Apparently I am the most argumentative person on the planet according to my ex-partner.(even though the likelyhood of having met every person on the planet is quite small).


I haven't read anything from Dan Brown about his book and I'm not all that interested. But I wonder what he identifies as historically accurate. As I said before, most of the arguments he uses in his book are centuries old. They are not facts but ongoing debate. The argument that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene is centuries old. Whether it is true or not is impossible to prove. We have no historical proof that Jesus existed but most people believe that he did. Historical accuracy is a very tenuous thing. As we have said before, absence of proof is not proof of absence. The argument that the person on the right of Jesus in Da Vinci's 'Last Supper' is a woman is, again, a very old argument and impossible to prove. That Opus Dei have been searching for the Holy Grail is unlikely but the organisation exists and they make no secret of the fact that part of their philosophy involves self flagellation. I have to wonder whether Dan Brown is claiming historical accuracy because all of his arguments have been raised before and therefore belong to history rather than that they are factual accounts.

As this is yet another parallel universe that engender another squabble on tradition v modern, I refer to you to Rob Hands immensely well written paper on www.astro.com. I totally endorse this view and have nothing more to add other than what I've said recently on other threads.

Hello,

As this is yet another parallel universe that engender another squabble on tradition v modern,

No it's not... or at least that's not what it's suppose to be...

My original intention was to see whether those astrologers who currently used traditional/ancient/medieval methods in most of their work still retain any of the techniques they learnt from modern (assuming they did come from "modern" astrology) and if possible, why...

Please, i dont want to generate any blood sports, nor would i want anyone to think that i am creating any attack on his holiness, "The Pope", but many records of "The Early Years", are in "The Vatican Archives", and i must say, every day that "The Pope" opens his window on St Peter's Square, the first thing he see's is an ancient relic that has been taken from Egypt.

My original intention was to see whether those astrologers who currently used traditional/ancient/medieval methods in most of their work still retain any of the techniques they learnt from modern (assuming they did come from "modern" astrology) and if possible, why...

Astrojin,

What's happening to your stated and restated topic? Dan Brown and the Pope...It's enough to make a poor student of astrology weep. It doesn't take long for the Pope to make an appearance in these hot topics.

My original intention was to see whether those astrologers who currently used traditional/ancient/medieval methods in most of their work still retain any of the techniques they learnt from modern (assuming they did come from "modern" astrology) and if possible, why...

Hi Astrojin,

I think this question is a bit difficult to answer. A large percentage of modern techniques have their original basis in traditional astrology. So if we retain things we have learned in modern astrology it is most likely have they a traditional history. I don't think it is a case of completely ditching the modern to go to the traditional. It is more a case of rejecting anything from modern astrology that does not have a strong basis in tradition or just leaving out the adaptations that modern astrologers have made. I personally do not use techniques that do not have a strong grounding in tradition but it is impossible to say that I learned nothing from studying modern astrology.

I found it very easy to move to a more traditional view of astrology. This is largely due to attending some of Deb's workshops in Sydney almost five years ago. What she had to say made such perfect sense that I could no longer see it any other way. I did not struggle at all with letting go of some of the modern techniques I had learned. There never was a time when I had to remind myself that Saturn was the ruler of Aquarius rather than Uranus, for example or that the natural zodiac is a modern adaptation. I was already disillusioned with modern astrology and was ready to give up. I am a historian by profession anyway and have a very strong Saturn in my chart so it will always be easier for me to go this way.

I am sorry that i may have left an impression that my comments wasn't in line with astrological thought, which i need to explain.
Our very techneques in astrology follow ancient myths and legends.
The present obelisk in St. Peter's square was brought to Rome by Caligula, who lived the myth of Osiris and Isis.
This obelisk was moved to its present position by Pope Sixtus V in 1586, who's crest of four Lions can be seen to this day on this monument.
The myth of Leo is entwinned with Regulus, so as you see i am contributing to this discussion, and a major myth of Virgo/Leo.

skippy wrote:As this is yet another parallel universe that engender another squabble on tradition v modern, I refer to you to Rob Hands immensely well written paper on www.astro.com. I totally endorse this view and have nothing more to add other than what I've said recently on other threads.

thanks Skippy! made excellent reading and food for thought.