Skyscript Astrology Forum

waybread wrote:
For many centuries, astrology flourished under Christianity and Judaism, which taught that people make moral choices (misnamed "free will.")

I got the impression that until very recent history, people believed things were "the will of God" and to be accepted.

I think some fundamentalist Christians might take issue with the idea of people making moral choices, as they would say that there is only one choice, to accept Christ or not to accept Christ. And in previous centuries, evil was ascribed to the supernatural, and people only blamed for being possessed by it.

The idea that people make moral choices seems to be more a pragmatic stance of authorities, not really intrinsic to Christianity except in that Christianity was the moral authority.

Fleur, sorry, but I can't take your posts seriously. After all, if I did, it wouldn't be "Fleur" talking, but merely a collection of molecules labeled "Fleur" through whom "fate" registers itself, apparently through conscious "transits." Fleur herself can only post what she posts. She has no choice about posting (the "transits" made her do it when she did it,) and no choice about what she types into her posts.

Similarly, there is no "me" here for Fleur to interact with. Likewise, I am merely a collection of molecules nicknamed Waybread, and I have no choice about when and what I write. So this entire interaction is meaningless.

But wait! The Fleur-molecule-collection has actually offered me a choice! Or so it seems. "She" wrote:

Try looking back on one of your disappointments, preferably a distant one that is no longer so painful you can't look at it without getting upset. Try to go deeply into it, and you will find how deep its roots were and how you couldn't have changed it.

But this couldn't mean that I have a choice about taking the Fleur-molecule-collection's advice, could it? Presumably, whether I try or do not try, I have no choice in the matter, I merely have to enact the set script that my "transits" (whom or whatever they are in her lexicon) have decreed I must do. In fact, because we now have ephemerides projecting back thousands of years into the past, and that could be projected back billions of years, my "trying" or "not trying" in response to a particular post was decreed before there was such a thing as life on earth.

Oh, well.

Fleur, assuming you have some choice in the matter, I recommend that you read up a bit on recent neuroscience, the Christian views of "free will," (hint: it starts with the Garden of Eden,) as well as the differences between instincts and learned behaviour.

Both extreme views of determinism and "free will" are untenable, principally for lack of evidence. One hopes eventually that it will be possible to discuss fruitfully the middle ground where most normal people live their everyday lives.

In the meantime, your beliefs are your beliefs.

Hi everybody! Glad to be here.

Okay, I'll jump right in.

I think it is important to point out that this issue of volition is based on a misconception and can be looked at from basically two different perspectives, the personal perspective (mind/intellect) and the impersonal perspective (prior to mind/intellect).

The belief in free will is based on the belief in a separate volitional person, a separate entity. That's the default personal perspective. From the impersonal perspective, however, it can be seen that separation is an illusion and that oneness is the case. And that's what all the great masters have been telling us since eons.

This also explains why volition discussions never go anywhere. The dilemma cannot be resolved with the intellect/mind. It can only be resolved by a change of perspective, volition has to be seen for what it is from prior to mind. Also, there is no actual middle ground, since both free will and fate are illusions and not truth.

So, what are the implications for astrology? Well, probably none. Since the astrologer is naturally dealing with persons and therefore looking at the world from the personal perspective. And from the personal perspective free will just feels real and will always feel real no matter what we have concluded about volition (as waybread just showed). So, maybe we could say that we have no choice but to assume that free will is real, hehe.

Hi Muchacho,

Welcome to the forum!

Materialistic science always attempted to make some kind of machine out of Man.

I have read about the research results in neuroscience you are referring to. Personally, I think they must be flawed, in some way. Maybe it's true that in situations requiring immediate action we are making decisions quite unconsciously. But sometimes a decision is the result of a prolonged thought process, which as such is a conscious effort.

Moreover, if free will was merely an illusion, what would be the purpose of such a pretence?

In my understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics, the free will of the conscious personality is an attribute from the Soul and therefore belongs to the quinta essentia which is central to and potentially in control of the four elements of the physical world.

Cheers
Michael

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the welcome.

I wasn't referring to neuroscience. I was referring to what Advaita and Zen and other non-dual teachings are telling us. And neuroscience, or science in general, or even philosophy can't touch that. It's beyond the grasp of the intellect/mind.

You make a good point about decision making and the thought process. This is a vast topic. I can go into more details later if you want to.

Muchacho,

Yes, Eastern philosophies generally take a non-dual outlook on reality. To you, this seems to imply that there is neither free will nor predestination.

Let's talk about this further.

muchacho, I take your point that both "free will" and determinism are illusions. Unfortunately, most of us don't live in the blissful world of the spiritual masters. We have to decide (whether freely or fatalistically) what to cook for dinner and or whether to stop at the bank. We can do this with a high or low level of spirituality, but at some level, somebody has to take out the trash and make a few decisions regarding the physical body. Seeing everything as One is super, but humans survive as a species because we are able to make discriminating choices-- even if free will is illusory.

My thinking was highly influenced by the old Jane Roberts "Seth" books. Basically Roberts channeled a disincarnate entity called Seth, who saw the expansion of creativity as one of the basic principles of the universe. This creativity ranges from the evolution of new species, to the expansion of the universe, to the artist's canvas. In this vastly creative universe, people do make choices, although these are limited both by physical realities (on our earth plane) as well as by previous choices we have made.

Seth's big lesson is that humans create their own reality.

The books have no astrological content to the best of my recollection, but they can inform astrological discussions on a "nature of reality" level.

http://www.gestaltreality.com/articles/ ... -material/

?You create your own difficulties. This is true for each individual. The inner psychological state is projected outward, gaining physical reality ? and this regardless of the nature of the psychological state. ? The rules apply to everyone. You can use them for your own benefit and change your own conditions once you realize what they are."

?You cannot escape your own attitudes, for they will form the nature of what you see. Quite literally you see what you want to see; and you see your own thoughts and emotional attitudes materialized in physical form. If changes are to occur, they must be mental and psychic changes. These will be reflected in your environment. Negative, distrustful, fearful, or degrading attitudes toward anyone work against the self.?

These quotes bring us full circle to the OP. While I believe that on the physical plane, physical problems can be objectively real, the horoscope surely tells us a lot about how the native experiences the world.

Whether one practices western traditional or modern, Vedic, Uranian, or some other form of astrology; as Robert Hand put it, we can suggest to people the most empowering uses of the charts. Based on my personal experience, I do think the universe notices when we make the attempt to cast a given horoscope issue in a more empowering manner, even in small ways. Mercury square Saturn in the 8th may still be a bearcat, but we can begin to "listen" to them, inquire of them as to their motives and objectives, and then look for a way to meet both of their needs.

We can also begin to assume some responsibility (not guilt) for acknowledging the influence we have had on negative events in our lives, and then make some effort to input some corrections.

Waybread,

I think we are on the same page here. Decisions do happen and things get done. To the question "Who done it?" the average human (from the perspective of MANY) will answer "I did it" and the master will probably just remain silent because from the perspective of ONE things get done but there is no doer to be found and those who claim doership are just fictional characters that falsely assume that they are in charge. But the fictional character plane is exactly what we are dealing with in astrology. So in that sense, it's okay to go with the assumption of free will.

I never read the Seth books. I am more familiar with the Abraham-Hicks material. Jerry Hicks was very much into the Seth books, especially the idea that humans create their own reality. But somehow Seth never really explained HOW humans create their own reality. That was his big question and later when his wife Esther started channeling herself, that's what the channeled material mostly was about, how humans create their own reality. So it's somehow a continuation of what has been started with Seth.

Abraham's big lesson is that humans create their own reality and that their emotions tell them how they are doing.

There are also some rare comments about astrology.

And since you mention Seth, he once said that "Spontaneity has its own order" which I think is what we are both trying to say here. Although we may differ on how much is actually spontaneity and how much is order.

Which brings us back to the OP. From my perspective, there are no inherently bad or difficult charts. And you probably wouldn't go so far if I understood you correctly?

Waybread and Muchacho,

Surely we all have a perception of ourselves freely making choices. Whether this is merely an illusion may not make much difference practically but it's an appropriate topic for philosophical study nevertheless. (Incidentally, my grandfather, a professor of philosophy, wrote a whole book dedicated just to this.) I think, Eastern philosophies may provide us with some clues here, regardless of non-dualism being a first-hand experience for us or not. So I look forward to Muchacho's ideas on thought processes and decision making.

Our personal answer to this question of free will verses determinism however is part of our philosophy of life, and this does make a big difference practically! Because, as Jane Robert's trance personality Seth said, we create our experienced reality largely based on what we believe, and our experiences will reflect and reinforce our beliefs.

The only mention of astrology by Seth that I'm aware of is in The Unknown Reality, Vol. 2. Seth doesn't deny astrology's basic validity but, of course, doesn't see it as deterministic either. According to him, always the individual exists in an infinite framework of ?probabilities? - alternative experiences that can physically manifest themselves, or not. This is a concept related to quantum mechanics.

What I think may be particularly relevant to astrology is Jane Roberts' Aspect Psychology in ?Adventures in Consciousness?, describing how our various ?archetypal? selves are tuning into different levels of psychological reality.

Quite clearly, astrology demonstrates the basic truth of how we are creating our physical experiences, as the symbols in the chart are often at once manifest internally as well as externally.

As above, so below
As within, so without

Michael

Michael Sternbach wrote:Muchacho,

Yes, Eastern philosophies generally take a non-dual outlook on reality. To you, this seems to imply that there is neither free will nor predestination.

Let's talk about this further.

Michael,

Actually, the question of volition has no answer. The question will just fall by the wayside and disappear and will be a non-issue after it has been seen through. But if you want to call it neither free will nor predestination, that's fine with me because basically we are talking about an absence (which does not mean the presence of something else).

We have to keep in mind that both volition (free will) and non-volition (predestination) are stories connected to a fictional separate entity that in reality does not exist. Which means without that separate entity, there's no need for either of these stories. Same goes for the question about purpose.

So, seeing through the myth of separate entities is the only way the question of volition can be put to rest once and for all. But, unfortunately, that cannot be done via mental investigation because it has to be seen from the perspective that is non-conceptual, prior to mind/intellect.

What can be done, however, is showing that volition is just a concept. And that can be done by investigating how your decisions come about. You will see that you can do and think what you want but if you take a step further back and ask why you want what you want, then you will probably run out of answers. Volition will be exposed as a mere assumption, a conclusion after the fact.

However, the funny thing about this investigation is (which brings us back to my original point) that it will be without any practical consequences. Lets say you conclude that predestination is the case, and free will false. As long as you can remember that conclusion, it will influence the way you look into the world. But when push comes to shove and you are fully occupied with what's going on here and now and you don't remember your conclusion anymore, you will fall back into your default mode of a separate volitional person which takes free will for real.

So, from the position of a separate entity, believing in free will is not a problem and just a natural consequence. Believing in predestination from a position of a separate entity, however, is a problem because it's against all natural instincts and creates a split mind situation.

That's why I say volition discussions don't go anywhere and don't solve anything. From the position of a separate entity we can't help but take free will for real. It just comes with the territory.

Michael,

What Seth says there seems to be in alignment with what I've heard Abraham-Hicks say about astrology. It's all about potentials and actually more about probabilities than possibilities.

Do you know if Seth believes in the concept of souls?

Muchacho wrote:

Which brings us back to the OP. From my perspective, there are no inherently bad or difficult charts. And you probably wouldn't go so far if I understood you correctly?

It's been years since I read the Seth books, but the site linked in my previous post offers a good refresher. The "who" or "what" is a non-physical entity that persists through many incarnations. I understand it in terms "soul" but this carries sectarian connotations that are not part of the Seth message. We experience human life on an "outer" embodied and ego-driven physical level, but our unconscious motivations are driven by the interior or soul-like entity.

This entity is part of "All-That-Is", for whom the Christian word "God" is only an approximation. There is nothing (including each of us on a bad day) that isn't part of All-That-Is.

From the linked site:

"The mental energy of God is the composite substance of all things, including all beings, all universes, and all events and phenomena. God?s consciousness extends into all things as they are created, and is therefore omnipresent. For these reasons, all things in existence, including physical matter, have life and consciousness. God wishes to experience existence in all its forms and ramifications, and through its creations is able to do this. God is therefore dynamic and ever-changing and shares in the failures, triumphs, perfections and imperfections of its creations. The individuals that exist within God, though part of God, have free will and self-determination. If there is reality outside of God, the Seth personality was not aware of it.["

This "free will" (not a concept I like, BTW) fundamentally consists of our ability to create our own realities through our thinking and experiencing. If we experience life in an inherently pessimistic manner, then the things we dislike or fear are apt to manifest materially. If we maintain a constructive, positive, friendly outlook, then we organize our material manifestations to follow suit.

This is why I think astrologers, whether western traditional, modern, Vedic, or what-have-you do well to encourage constructive horoscope interpretations. This isn't because modern astrologers want to be all nicey-nice and can't handle bad news. It is because astrologers can make a tough situation harder to bear for a vulnerable and unhappy native.

We have to be careful here, as we've all heard of evangelical Christian ministers who encourage their congregation to visualize getting wealthy. I don't think Seth's teachings work this way; I think it would be more to experience abundance at whatever level of financial resources one had.

So to respond to your final comments to me, on an esoteric level, of course, there are no bad charts. Humans are merely particles of All-That-Is experiencing life in all of its various ups and downs. (I sometimes say, "God doesn't make mistakes.")

However, most of us have to live in a physical plane, even if well-informed by an esoteric philosophy. This afternoon, for example, I need to get a couple of documents notarized, fax one of them, and buy some dog food (or our dog will be hungry.) Even if I get my head around the Cosmic Oneness of everything, and that there is no Me here and no Dog over there, it doesn't seem quite right to let her suffer (within her canine universe.)

I read charts for people, and most people focus on the physical plane. If someone wonders why she's 40 and still single (unhappily so) she doesn't want a metaphysical lecture on the Oneness Of The Everything, so it wouldn't help her for me to tell her so.

And I think we're on the physical plane for a reason. I think we are meant to live in it as our medium of existence in this incarnation; and not just try to outsmart it, out-theorize it, rise above it, or ignore it.