Hi Ming,
Now to the other part of your post.
Ming wrote: Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:21 am
I know the Chinese characters or names for the five elements and the planets are the same ,but it does not mean they are the same thing !!! And five elements only use the one character (??????????not inculding another character which refers to star or planet (??
Are you familiar with the astrological treatise by Ssu Ma Ch'ien? (A translation into English can be found in Derek Walter's book I mentioned.) This ancient author sees the planets and the elements as quite synonymous, indeed sometimes he simply uses the names of the elements for the planets; i.e. he writes ?Wood in the North, and Earth in the South?, referring to Jupiter, and Saturn, respectively.
But, of course, the elements (in the Western
and in the Eastern system)
are not identically the planets. They are abstractions, really, but they find expression on all levels of existence. So the planets constitute just another level of analogy to the elements.
By the way , the ancients in China called Venus as ????. if in the morning ( orient before the Sun and can be seen by naked eyes ) Called ? ????if setting in the west ,( occident behind the Sun and can be seen by naked eyes ) she is called ????

Could you translate these characters, please, for the benefit of the non-sinologist on this forum?
And in western astrology ,the four element is also not associated to planets in such simple way.
Can we say Saturn associate with earth element ? Mars with Fire ? Mercury with water ? Jupiter with air?
Yes.
I know Saturn is cold and dry, however , Saturn is not equal to the earth element itself just because using the same name in Chinese or has the similar quality as the earth element I have to say.
This attribution is not of my own making. It was introduced, as far as I know, by Raymond Lull, one of the great universal scholars in human history. Given the Aristotelian qualities of the planets, it was a logical conclusion.
How about Mercury ,which is generally cold and dry , it belongs water?
Mercury is regarded as being of ?mixed qualities? by most traditional authors, so he could not represent any element. Although I think he could be seen as representing the Quintessence, or Ether. Only Bonatti describes Mercury as having an ?earthy? character, as far as I know.
Yes, in the Chinese system he belongs to Water, this doesn't seem to agree with the ?Western? system.
and you told us Venus belongs water because she is cold and moist according to your reference. How about the Moon she also is cold and moist why not she also belongs to water?
The Moon certainly also has a strong connection to Water! Several authors call her cold and moist, even though Al-Biruni calls her only moist. But already in ancient times, she was not really considered as a planet but as one of the Luminaries. I think, this may be the reason for not including her and the Sun in this scheme.
And Plato also associated the four elements with four geometric figures ,what do you think about it?
This does not enter astrological tradition, as far as I know. Platon actually also included the Quintessence, and attributed the five regular polyhedrons (called the Platonic bodies) to the five elements then. In his
Timaios, the elementary ?atoms? everything consists of have their shapes. This theory seems to be rather of historical interest only, but interestingly, in modern quantum physics, there is a concept called ?Loop Quantum Gravity? which assumes that space itself consists of
very small units which could have such shapes. Moreover, the Platonic bodies continue to play a central role in what is called Sacred Geometry.
And Bonatti said why Planets are super since they have another essence ( Bonatti on Basic astrology , tr. by Benjamin Dykes page 2) and he believed the motion of the heaven surrounding the elements changes fire and air and they change the other elements (namely water and earth ),together with ensouled and vegetative things ,and the rest of what has being under lunar circle ( and they exist in them), and things susceptible of change or alteration.(ibid Page 2-3)
Bonatti was using the Aristotelian cosmological scheme in which all the celestial bodies are eternal and consist of Ether. But I think this only looks like a contradiction, because, I mentioned before, the planets were never really seen as the same as the terrestrial elements, they are just analogous to them. Likewise, as you certainly know, the signs of the zodiac were thought of as belonging to the elements, at least since Valens.
Best wishes
Michael