Kali wrote:

Donald Trump was born with Regulus within a degree of his Asc. and exhibits the manifestation of masculine energy, power and wealth promised by Regulus in Leo. In 2012 he ran for the presidency and again seeming to be using this energy to serve others. Many believe he's only out for himself and to promote his book and business enterprises but as I was thinking about Regulus moving into Virgo I wondered if we are not seeing a glimpse of Regulus power in this sign of service. I believe he sincerely wants to serve our country and bring honor and pride back for the U.S. (p.s. I'm not promoting him for the presidency, just observing his behavior in terms of the changing Regulus.)

It is very early but many will be born with strong Regulus in Virgo configurations. What might that bring humanity? We've seen the results of Regulus in Leo for 600 years, the last few hundred ruled by Mars in the 3rd decan. Now he is in the first decan of Virgo ruled by the Sun. As I said, still early.

Just a thought,

Kali

I dont disagree that fixed stars can be very important in natal studies. And you are quite correct that Trump has a strong connection to Regulus in his ascendant. On the thread we have running on Trump that has already been highlighted.

However, what we are discussing here is not the effects of fixed stars on individual natal charts but their proposed effect on society as a whole over centuries and millennia. The time frames we are considering are much longer than any individual natal chart. We are looking at very broad social changes. Not the here today gone tomorrow focus of electoral politics.

As for what Regulus in Virgo indicates I think one very obvious possibility is the end of the patriarchal Leonine age and the beginning of an era where power increasingly shifts to the feminine. I prefer not to say more here as I intend to put my ideas down in more depth in an article.

Mark

Is it possible that Rudolf Steiner is correct in saying that the influence of constellations is due to spiritual beings in their vicinities? (Thus the influence of a constellation would extend beyond a few bright stars.) Is this too much of an esoteric and ?superstitious? idea to consider in our modern times?

I don't think the issue that creates doubt here is superstition in modern times (I don't think we can discount the existence of spiritual beings in general) but astronomical facts (*) in this case.

Although the constellations look and are talked about informally ( in this case by both astrologers and astronomers) as if they exist as two dimensional projections ( i.e all their stars are the same distance from us), in reality any given star in a constellation might be as far away from another as it is from here. e.g. Orion's stars lie at distances ranging from 243 to 1360 light years -

In such three dimensional form the constellations only look as we think they do to us in this solar system; elsewhere in space they would take on another appearance/form. So for me that negates the spiritual beings theory as
a) there is no "vicinity" for them to live in, in the three dimensional sense and
b) if a being "out there" in the general direction of a constellation had a form related to our projection of the constellation rather than the infinite number of other projections of it available from other points in space it would be a bit of a coincidence.

Note that this does not, however, negate the importance of the meaning of the constellations in the form that we see them. They can still have associations/correlations with deities/events etc. as part of a manifestation of a bigger intelligence/correlation; they merely can't be locations/homes in the three dimensional sense

(*) that is a proviso- until we can travel to distant stars we can't really tell where they are or indeed if they are physically real so there is always a possibility, even if not a probability, of any explanation

Amelia wrote:

Although the constellations look and are talked about informally ( in this case by both astrologers and astronomers) as if they exist as two dimensional projections ( i.e all their stars are the same distance from us), in reality any given star in a constellation might be as far away from another as it is from here. e.g. Orion's stars lie at distances ranging from 243 to 1360 light years

In such three dimensional form the constellations only look as we think they do to us in this solar system; elsewhere in space they would take on another appearance/form. So for me that negates the spiritual beings theory as
a) there is no "vicinity" for them to live in, in the three dimensional sense and
b) if a being "out there" in the general direction of a constellation had a form related to our projection of the constellation rather than the infinite number of other projections of it available from other points in space it would be a bit of a coincidence.

When Rudolf Steiner talks about the spiritual forces of the zodiac, he is limiting himself to the sphere of our solar system and Sun in relation to our earth. The ecliptic, the path of the Sun as seen from our earth is a fact. This path is divided into twelve equal portions which we term the zodiac. (Setting aside how this zodiac is measured for the time being.)

Steiner places a great deal of emphasis on the nature and evolution of the human being as related to our zodiac, including the education of children. He?s not concerned about beings who might live within the sphere of Sirius, for example.

The spiritual beings he talks about are strictly related to our solar system. This is why the question of the actual influence of the bright and/or dim stars may be an open question. Steiner does say that the stars have an influence, and he does reference "the fixed stars of the zodiac." But his discussion of the spiritual forces or beings who brought the zodiac into existence is different.

If (as Steiner says) the spiritual forces of the zodiac are conscious aware beings with specific missions, then it?s not a coincidence that each of the 12 areas of the zodiac has a specific purpose for human development. These purposes or meanings would be effective in each person?s birth chart and daily life as well as the longer cosmic periods of procession.

According to Steiner, each of the planets also has its sphere of influence which extends beyond the actual physical body itself. This relates to the older astrological doctrine that each planet?s orb extends only a certain number of degrees in relation to other planets.

I believe these are important concepts to consider because if certain spiritual energies radiate from the zodiac, they will remain in their places through the centuries. The constellational area of Leo isn?t going to be shifting over to the area of Cancer or Virgo.

The constellaional areas don?t rotate through the centuries. But viewed from the shifting processional framework, they SEEM to rotate. This is why the actual foundation of tropical astrology is important to consider, and why David Roell (and perhaps others??) see the tropical zodiac as actually existing in the earth rather than in the sky. Otherwise the 12 sign zodiac and the sky are there in an unchanging direction. We call this the sidereal zodiac.

When Rudolf Steiner talks about the spiritual forces of the zodiac, he is limiting himself to the sphere of our solar system and Sun in relation to our earth.......
... Steiner places a great deal of emphasis on the nature and evolution of the human being as related to our zodiac, including the education of children. He?s not concerned about beings who might live within the sphere of Sirius, for example.

The spiritual beings he talks about are strictly related to our solar system

Ah, OK. that makes more sense then and as you say, my comments don't apply to his theories.

Thank you
A

Amelia wrote:

Ah, OK. that makes more sense then and as you say, my comments don't apply to his theories.

Amelia, whether or not one sees the spiritual beings Steiner speaks of as a reality, we still have the problem (or mystery if you prefer) of the fixed stars in the vicinity of the zodiac. Sidereal astrologers can simply say they all go together to make up the influence of a sign, but why (in the tropical zodiac) would a few bright stars have influence, but not the millions of other stars?

I don't believe that even sidereal astrologers have considered the source or process of a sign's supposed influence. Astrologers who use both zodiacs talk about the mathematical measurement, but very few look behind that measurement to wonder about the source of a sign's characteristics.

Rudolf Steiner says something very interesting: That if we could see a child's brain at birth, it would reflect the pattern of the stars in the sky at that moment. The two patterns would be precisely the same. He says that we are dependent upon the entire Cosmos as well as the earth (the body takes in nourishment from the earth) for our existence. It really does seem that there are more questions than answers for astrologers.

Therese Hamilton wrote:. It really does seem that there are more questions than answers for astrologers.

i think that is true regarding what steiner has to say as well.. hard to know what exactly he meant and whether he was using words specifically or figuratively... bottom line is this - too many subjective elements go into people's choice of words, especially astronomical or astrological words from those who don't spend a life studying astrology.. no offense to steiner.. he had a lot of great ideas and seemed to have some special insight into life, but parsing his words here for a definitive answer on ongoing philosophical type astro questions would seem to lead to a dead end..