Skyscript Astrology Forum

Paul,

there are some books out there that might explain the things better than I am able to do.
One of it is from Robert Schwartz "Courageous Souls".

Namaste

Southern Cross wrote:

Eric said that everything in the world is an extension of our consciousness, therefore I don't really exist. That is a true statement. Of course, "Eric Meyers" doesn't really exist either (we are both a collection of ideas and molecules invented by our egos which is also true).

I think he goes a bit too far with his statement. There is a material world of which we are part of and on a certain level we are separate from each other.
He has some extreme ideas and is not an example that can be generalized for all modern astrologers.

When I spoke to Steven Forrest, he explained it like this... If I was to go to the top of a mountain and meditate for about 3 days with very little sound or change in the landscape, then the individual / ego begins to dissolve away. Having spent much longer in the desert of Nevada, I have experienced this to some extent. When tapped on the shoulder, I was brought "out of it" and recollected "Curtis Manwaring" my personality again. But it is not really "me", it is what I use to function in this world.

interesting side conversation some of you have going..

keeping it astrological, it reminds me of liz greenes book "the astrology of fate". not too shabby a title for a modern astrologer( i think that is how many categorize her), i must say! she essentially tried to communicate the idea that pluto is like a planet of fate (some astrologers like to take this view on the outer planets) while focusing in on pluto as particularly dangerous in bringing more fated types of experiences into our lives at particular points in time..

the issue of rape is as good a place as any to start when thinking of pluto's role in hard aspects in a persons chart, especially a pluto/mars connection in a womens chart. i have seen this a few times, and while i don't think it is right to blame anyone for the experiences that seem to befall them, through no conscious choice of their own, i do find it thought provoking thinking of the kinds of energy we carry around consciously or not and the types of experiences we may find ourselves in..

i don't have an answer for any of this other then to think greater self awareness is always a good place to start which is why i think astrology is so useful.. perhaps a traditional astrologer can get at special insights that can't be gotten via modern astrology techniques, but coming from modern and working towards integrating my evoliing understanding of traditional astrology (in my own way- that is the way i do things), i do think that pluto is a helpful consideration for these types of topics - suicide, rape, violence and etc.. maybe i am mistaken and my viewpoint on this is all trash as it hasn't been reproduced in some scientific statistical study.. it is just a matter of time - maybe a few hundred years - and it will come out.. this is why i feel that astrology is headed towards an incorporation of elements from both sides of this crazy divide that annoys the hell out of me - modern and traditional.

okay - 2nd thought - what is life if it's not some form of expanding consciousness or greater awareness of our place in this universe? to think it would come about minus the pain strikes me as an odd idea!!! "go with the saturn" is my motto and turn the lead into gold!! i suppose we could take this approach with the outer planets too if we were receptive to the idea..

James wrote:

the issue of rape is as good a place as any to start when thinking of pluto's role in hard aspects in a persons chart, especially a pluto/mars connection in a womens chart. i have seen this a few times, and while i don't think it is right to blame anyone for the experiences that seem to befall them, through no conscious choice of their own, i do find it thought provoking thinking of the kinds of energy we carry around consciously or not and the types of experiences we may find ourselves in..

i don't have an answer for any of this other then to think greater self awareness is always a good place to start which is why i think astrology is so useful..

The way I see it, the philosophy that we (on some level) form our own experiences requires us to to look into principles of individual and collective spiritual evolution which operate quite beyond human concepts of good and bad, or morality. The purpose of this philosophy is not to to downplay conditions of misery but to understand and treat their causes.

okay - 2nd thought - what is life if it's not some form of expanding consciousness or greater awareness of our place in this universe? to think it would come about minus the pain strikes me as an odd idea!!! "go with the saturn" is my motto and turn the lead into gold!!

Before looking into traditional astrology, I had already accumulated some knowledge of her Hermetic sisters, alchemy and astral magic. These sciences are focussing on transforming the energies we inside us, in order to improve our "human condition". Whereas traditional astrology seems to quite readily submit to them. This difference struck me as odd when I first started reading texts like the Liber Hermetis.

i suppose we could take this approach with the outer planets too if we were receptive to the idea..

One astrologer who is exploring ways of working with the outer planets along the lines you are suggesting is Barbara Schermer in her book Astrology Alive, where she introduces techniques derived from kriya yoga to this end. I also once attended a fascinating speech Barbara held about alchemy from an astrological perspective, but it looks like she hasn't published it anywhere else.

Southern Cross wrote:

Hi Michael,

from my point of view our emotions are connected to outside events in that sense that on a basic soul level we are foremost emotional beings.

Southern Cross,

That's an interesting perspective... I'm not saying it isn't true - at least for some of us!

However, I think that on a basic soul level we are spiritual beings (it's almost a pun, I know). Our "soul nucleus" clothes itself with various layers of etheric matter in the different dimensions it experiences on its journey. We bring this with us in form of our subtle bodies when we incarnate. The subtle bodies are providing the blue-prints for our spiritual, intellectual, and emotional processes and experiences.

This is reflecting the ancient Mithraic view that the soul descends from the stars and is imbued with a number of traits when passing through the planetary spheres on its way to Earth. In modern times, some mystics had similar visions. More on request.

When we incarnate we plan our outside experiences around emotional topics we want to work on while incarnated.

So it surely matters how well we succeed in these endeavours? And won't our results in turn have an effect on our outside experiences?

I think that we do have free will but almost only before we incarnate when we plan our existence on earth.

Hmm... This seems at variance with a widely held metaphysical belief that it is most of all the Earth plane where free will matters, or can indeed be expressed in the first place.

An unanswered question that I have is if we are able to change our fate when we managed to sort out certain emotions or intellectual things and don't need an event in the outside world anymore for us as "help" or as a"reminder".

This a logical conclusion! Or, we will be acting out the same basic energies (as indicated in our charts and their directions, etc.) but in a more constructive manner, and with corresponding outer experiences.

Michael

zoidsoft wrote:

When I spoke to Steven Forrest, he explained it like this... If I was to go to the top of a mountain and meditate for about 3 days with very little sound or change in the landscape, then the individual / ego begins to dissolve away. Having spent much longer in the desert of Nevada, I have experienced this to some extent. When tapped on the shoulder, I was brought "out of it" and recollected "Curtis Manwaring" my personality again. But it is not really "me", it is what I use to function in this world.

I know that one can have experiences like that. When we are born we need a long time to grow into an identity.
The question is what we are when not incarnated. In physics we have the dichotomy about atom and wave. I think that we are both.
Looking at the zodiac we also have the split into signs that relate more to being an independent ("egoistic") individual and other signs that are more about being part of something bigger than the individual.
Interesting enough the center of everything is the sun: the ulitimate hommage on the individual.

Michael wrote:

The way I see it, the philosophy that we (on some level) form our own experiences requires us to to look into principles of individual and collective spiritual evolution which operate quite beyond human concepts of good and bad, or morality. The purpose of this philosophy is not to to downplay conditions of misery but to understand and treat their causes.

That's exactly what I think as well. It's not Mainstream though and some people feel not comfortable with it because of suspicion that it takes suffering too lightly (which is not the case).

However, I think that on a basic soul level we are spiritual beings (it's almost a pun, I know). Our "soul nucleus" clothes itself with various layers of etheric matter in the different dimensions it experiences on its journey. We bring this with us in form of our subtle bodies when we incarnate. The subtle bodies are providing the blue-prints for our spiritual, intellectual, and emotional processes and experiences.

I agree with that and do not see it as a contradiction to when I said that on a soul level we are foremost emotional beings. We are spiritual souls that function to a high extend through emotions. When we are born we are still close to the spiritual world. I think that it is no coincidence that small children are mainly operating as emotional beings. That tells us something.
Also from what I gathered so far our spiritual developement comes mainly through dealing with emotions and working on them (basically cleaning ourselves from the darker layers of them).

Hmm... This seems at variance with a widely held metaphysical belief that it is most of all the Earth plane where free will matters, or can indeed be expressed in the first place.

I know that this is quite the opposite of the usual thinking.

I don't know if we have free will on earth at all and if so how much but I do think that on the spiritual planes we decide freely how we will live while we incarnate.
That's something I also got confirmed when reading books that were from channeled sources or from people with near-death-experiences who got disclosed higher insights.

On the other hand in this material world we do not have 100% free will.
Scientists have found out that we already (often) react to something before it even reaches any centres in our brains that could give us the possibility to become concious about it. That also includes difficult decisions beyond automatic body reactions.

Then there is the phenomenon that many people do get information about things that will happen in the future long time before this often wild stuff actually does become true. I had several personal experiences with this but I will give one example from a book here.

William Hewitt writes in his book "psychic development for beginners" on page 68 about him foreseing the death of a certain child on the 2th may 1972. He got this information in february 1972 and did not know the child in person nor was it known to have a deadly disease. It died right on the 2th of may 1972.

Now it is clear to me that some things are not open to our own doing here on earth. To what extend does this apply? I don't know.

James wrote:

keeping it astrological, it reminds me of liz greenes book "the astrology of fate". not too shabby a title for a modern astrologer( i think that is how many categorize her), i must say! she essentially tried to communicate the idea that pluto is like a planet of fate (some astrologers like to take this view on the outer planets) while focusing in on pluto as particularly dangerous in bringing more fated types of experiences into our lives at particular points in time..

Interesting. I read this book a long time ago. I should read it again in the next future. Still I think that it isn't just pluto who brings fate into our lives but that all planets are connected with that. The possible stories are already written in our charts and are coming into life through the movements of the stars at certain times.

the issue of rape is as good a place as any to start when thinking of pluto's role in hard aspects in a persons chart, especially a pluto/mars connection in a womens chart.

Mars/pluto is certainly something to look out for when violence and violations of peoples rights are involved. With rape I also noticed venus/pluto often.

but coming from modern and working towards integrating my evoliing understanding of traditional astrology (in my own way- that is the way i do things),

That's how I do it too.

this is why i feel that astrology is headed towards an incorporation of elements from both sides of this crazy divide that annoys the hell out of me - modern and traditional.

The division between traditional and modern astrology is unnecessary and not helpful at all. Like I said before we need both.

turn the lead into gold!!

My motto too.

Thanks for publishing that podcast Chris - it was a very interesting discussion and you did a particularly good job in clarifying that traditional perspectives do not suffer from the stifling limitations that some astrologers presume. I was mainly interested in hearing what Eric actually said about the people who suffer the abusive attacks of others, to see if it was as bad as it sounded in this thread. I don't think it was. It seemed to me that his onus is on moving beyond the issue of apportioning blame and guilt for what has already happened, which is not to suggest that he is handing responsibility over to the victim for being the architect of the accidental experiences they suffer. Presumably he allows the possibility of unfortunate chance events, which is one of the precepts of Ptolemaic theory, and is mainly concerned with people who undergo cycles of regularly recurring negative experiences, his concern being how to free them from the suffering of past hurts and get them out of a self-perpetuating destructive outlook. This is a different scenario to that of a child being attacked or killed, or anyone who suffers random abusive attacks from others - so to understand his views on those sorts of issues would have required the discussion to have gone a lot deeper than it actually did.

I was struck myself (before you made the comparison too) of how Eric's views bore parallels with Stoic philosophy - which grants us no control over circumstances but grants the use of free will to find acceptance and peace of mind that frees the soul from the experience of suffering. Putting aside the many irritations of listening to him wrongly characterize traditional technique and appearing to have a complete ignorance of what knowledge was available to ancient astrologers, I did get a lot out of hearing both sides of the debate, and felt he made some important points about not projecting our astrological interests, assumptions or notions of "right or wrong" into the spiritual experience of our clients' lives. I was particularly pleased that you did a good job in pointing out that the role of consciousness is everywhere in the tradition, and there has never been a time when astrologers were not concerned about spiritual or psychological concerns. It is a pity Eric seemed so unaware of how the development of psychology is largely down to the work of historical astrologers such as Alkindi (as this and numerous other easily accessed sources acknowledge).

One thing I didn't like was the way the discussion was promoted as being a debate on traditional astrology versus modern astrology. Two or three decades ago that may have been the way things seemed to be, but now I think everyone has found their voice, so we can get out of the trap of believing that there is only one valuable astrological approach, which suffers at the hands of "competing" approaches. Eric paid lip-service to the notion that his approach is a complimentary or alternative one, rather than a competitor to traditional astrology, but his prejudiced characterization of what astrologers do with traditional technique suggested that he wasn't open to recognizing its value: at least not yet, although perhaps that may change as a result of debates like this. On the other hand, the one time I felt you let your own position slip was when you started saying things like "this is what you guys have done", which left the implication that contemporary astrologers who have not studied certain traditional techniques are responsible for astrological simplications made before their time. At that point I felt the quality of the debate slipped for a while, but then it picked up again and overall you did a superb job which resulted in a very stimulating and informative debate. I also liked the comments made by the audience at the end - many of those mirrored my own views, and showed that in-between the two extremes there is a place where many astrologers feel comfortable accommodating new discoveries and new approaches in such as way that it continues the tradition rather than rejects it (I think you also made a good case for this argument too). There were numerous points where I would have wanted to disagree with something Eric said, but in the end I was more inclined to overlook his ill-informed remarks and give reflection to the merits of those that did have value, and left me wondering where I might sometimes trip up myself. When astrologers stop conflicting and start really listening to each other's views, we usually all end up saying "yes, I agree with that too", as often happened in this debate. So there was a great deal of food for thought in this discussion, and I think many of us will get a lot out of listening in to what you both had to say.

Thanks, I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed the debate Deb!

Deb wrote: One thing I didn't like was the way the discussion was promoted as being a debate on traditional astrology versus modern astrology.

Yeah, this may have been a misstep in the marketing on my part, although I should try to explain what I was going for there. I set it up that way partially because Eric kind of laid down a gauntlet in his book and proposed that many traditional concepts should be rejected in favor of his own approach, and also said that he was open to debating the merits of his proposals. I also just thought that it might draw in more people who were expecting to see completely opposing, irreconcilable views, but then might be surprised to see points of agreement between the two camps.

Although I included some polemical elements in my opening statements, I tried to conclude it on a more conciliatory note by saying that I don't necessarily think that the point of the traditional movement is to simply go back into the past and stay there, but instead the point is to unite some parts of the ancient and modern traditions. I did this because ultimately I felt like the opposite to Eric's approach wasn't just hardline traditional viewpoint that says that the old ways are better than the new ways in every conceivable area, but instead the opposite of someone who is saying that only an extreme variant of modern astrology is the best approach is to say that there is something to be said for both ancient and modern astrology, and that we would be better off trying to reconcile the traditions where we can rather than keeping them separate or only arguing about who is right or better.

That was the idea at least, although framing it that way with the title may have set a tone for the debate that was slightly more contentious than I had anticipated. In the future I will have to be a bit more careful about that.

Chris Brennan wrote:...and that we would be better off trying to reconcile the traditions where we can rather than keeping them separate or only arguing about who is right or better.

In other words, you believe that a Venusian approach is better than a Martial or Mercurial approach to this problem?

Paul wrote:

Southern Cross wrote: Still looking back at it from a distance I understand now that there was something in my way of thinking, emotional being and acting that needed to be corrected as I wasn't really true to myself and my values.

That may be true for you, as I say, often we are instruments in our own downfall - but there are other things which are not in our control. And therefore we are not to be blamed individually for when we are beaten up or raped etc. Enough of blaming the victim, the people who need to do the inner work are the aggressors.

I think that some people continue to enable their abusers consciously or unconsciously. Maybe they stay in the same environment, around the same people, all of which are ultimately are toxic to them. To me, I think of it as a sign of internal self abuse being projected outwardly to attract those types of circumstances or dynamics between themselves and abusers.

If a person fails to be aware of, acknowledge and take the steps to change this, it only becomes a repetitive cycle until they do, but it shouldn't have to because I think that we do have partial control on how we sway the circumstances of our lives. I see the chart as a symbolic map of different roads that ultimately lead to the same destinations that each of the houses symbolize. Its not necessarily about how you get anywhere, but a question of, "Where are you going, who do you choose to bring with you, and why?"

Paul wrote:

Southern Cross wrote: I see it from from a different perspective. I think that we have multiple incarnations and do bring some "old stuff" into this life that we want to work on.

I'm agnostic about past lives, but I do agree we are not blank slates from birth, we have expectations and a blueprint much like an oak tree has an acorn, that we will likely grow into. I still don't think that the toddlers who are abused or abducted are because they were unenlightened in a previous life or were bringing some "old stuff".

I think that the placements of a child's chart are subject to projection and being lived out vicariously through others moreso than that of an adult's. If a child suffers through a string of 'bad' events internally or externally, directly or indirectly, we shouldn't really chalk it up to, "[sigh]Dear lord, little Rauls just 'bad' and its hopeless!" - Satan's spawn? maybe, because I think that the 'why' does stem back to the parents and how they aid as guides in 'shaping' and 'evoking' the healthiest expression of their child's chart, or don't. 'Healthiest' as in actions that don't serve as a harmful influence to themselves or others, and are able to fulfil the pursuit of a happy and meaningful life.

I think of kids themselves as a projection of their parents and their Sun signs because they are a blended physical and, I guess, 'spiritual' creation of theirs. Maybe this explains the pressure of why so many are pushed to achieve, the, "Whatever I couldn't or didn't do, you will for you...but, really I mean for us" mindset, with the Sun being a symbol of recognition and the essence of self at the core being. And I think that's what an individual should strive to be, their Self, and not an embodied manifestation of their creator's ego sent out into the world.

Paul wrote:

Southern Cross wrote:It's not a shallow view but quite the opposite. It is wider than the usual duality thinking of black and white. Because we all are traumatized to some extend and react very emotional to all sorts of topics it's easy to not see the other planes of existence and consciousness that also exist and could explain some of the bad stuff that happens to us and others.

Life is hard enough without piling more problems onto already suffering people. Sometimes bad things happen to us. It's all well and good to say "oh let's not label them bad" - who has ever been raped or stabbed and said "ah it wasn't that bad, I'd describe the feeling as neutral"? Nobody.

Some individuals choose to stay a victim. They continue on after suffering damaging experiences, pause and think, "Hmm...am I going to try to piece together and be the fragments of myself, or am I going to try to be Rebecca today? I don't know...I suffer from an identity crisis", but then what? Where do they go from there?