Skyscript Astrology Forum

Graham F wrote:I'm sure many of you have seen diagrams of the the rulership scheme arranged to show a suggested link with the 6 principal chakra of many Indian spiritual traditions. I think the application of this to astrology may possibly be as recent as Yukteswar, since David Frawley (one of his disciples) gives it in his writings (yes, I know, Frawley's not much of a scholar, but many others have also written and spoken of it - Ray Grasse explains it better than Frawley):

The central channel around which the breath/energy/prana goes up and down these solar and lunar halves, some say in an interwoven arrangment like a caducee, others say up and down on either side, fits nicely with Ptolemy's explanation of the rulership scheme going up and down the solstice axis: up to it's most northerly point (in the N hemisphere) corresponding to the cusp between the domains of the two lights (specifically, to the start of the sun's domain), and down to the deepest part ot Saturn's two domains (the cusp Cap/Aq).

I know there are other more involved associations proposed, involving planets/signs/chakra. This one seems the simplest and the most appropriate, I find it helpful and I'm beginning to find it "true". Sorry if this all sounds too New-Agey to many of you, but I just don't believe/feel that the the Sun starts its upward course somewhere near one of the hips and goes to the opposite throat, and its down ward one from throat to hip (talking "energy centres" here, not bits of bone and flesh). It must, even if we want to take all this simply as a metaphor, go from bottom (the root) to top (to the "third eye" area) and back down to the root. (The top of the head is usually reserved for some sort of enlightenment, 7th chakra, off the scale, so to speak). I dn't feel that in the diagram above, the Moon should be up in the brow area with Mercury, the Sun in the throat with Venus etc.

I agree with you that this is the most convincing of the many ways to link the chakras with the planets. Indian astrologers are using this scheme also. I talked about it somewhere else on Skyscript. Barbara Schermer presents it in her book, but I was not aware of David Frawley and Ray Grasse doing so as well. Could you give me the exact references, please?

Graham wrote (diagram in preceding post):

I'm sure many of you have seen diagrams of the the rulership scheme arranged to show a suggested link with the 6 principal chakra of many Indian spiritual traditions. I think the application of this to astrology may possibly be as recent as Yukteswar, since David Frawley (one of his disciples) gives it in his writings...

This chakra-sign diagram is not from Sri Yukteswar, although Swami Kriyananda (a disciple of Yogananda who was a disciple of Sri Yukteswar) has suggested it in one one or more of his books and lessons. I believe Sri Yukteswar might have suggested the circle of the zodiac beginning at Aries at the forehead going down and around the lowest chakra (which would be Virgo and Libra), then up again to Pisces at the 6th chakra.

But Sri Yukteswar left us nothing about a sign-chakra lineup. The above alignment is just my suggestion. All sign-chakra alignments are speculation. It's interesting, however, that Rudolf Steiner taught that seven constellations relate to the ascending line of evolution (Aries through Libra) and descending forces align with Scorpio through Pisces.

According to the diagram in Yukteswar's Holy Science, the ascending Satya Yuga (highest point) ends between Aries and Pisces, and then the descending Satya Yuga begins with Pisces through the reverse order of the zodiac to reach the lowest point between Libra and Virgo. Yukteswar relates this evolutionary cycle to the autumn equinox point.

Edit note: David Frawley is not a disciple of Sri Yukteswar. Sri Yukteswar had only a very few disciples besides Yogananda as he stated he would not be returning to the earth for another incarnation, but would be a savior on an astral planet.

If we hold to the traditional Indian ayurvedic assignment of elements to the senses, and the traditional assignment of elements to planets and chakras, we have:

Earth, smell (coccygeal center): Mercury (Recall the tarot card which has Mercury as the sexual organ of the devil. How do animals get to know each other?)

Water, taste (sacral center): Venus

Fire, sight (lumbar center): Mars

Air, touch, (dorsal center): Saturn

Ether, hearing, (cervical center): Jupiter (edit 29/12/15)

(Reference for ayurvedic elements and senses: Ayurveda: The Science of Self-Healing by Dr. Vasant Lad, Lotus Press, 1984; Also writings of Paramahansa Yogananda)

But there are most likely symbolic questions with any chakra-planet-sign arrangement.

Not having time to read long posts, how did a discussion of chakras get into this topic? (rhetorical question)

Hello

I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner, for some reason the notices of replies all went into my spam box this time. also sorry this is so long, just ignore if you've had enough. I probably won't have time to respond to any comments for a while, all this takes up so much time, so I won't be bothering you!

Also sorry that I seem to have caused so much confusion and a degree of irritation. This is partly my fault for allowing myself to be sidetracked into discussions of sidereal v. tropical, historical evidence and lack of it, etc. What is frustrating is that we are so close to understanding each other, I get the impression that Paul in particular rebuts my points or questions the validity of my questions by arguing precisely the points I'm trying to make, but expressed differently.

But I don't think my initial question, to which I kept trying to return, was really so difficult to understand: I was asking about the relationship of the classical rulership scheme to the tropical year, i.e. to the solstice/equinox (antiscial/contra-antiscial) axis), not about names of constellations which have been applied to the 30? sections of the ecliptic.

Michael understood this immediately:

The problem of the divergence between what we might call the "seasonal zodiac" (the zodiac organized around the cardinal cross as the onset of the four seasons) and the domicile scheme (the zodiac organized around the fixed cross) is an interesting one.

But Michael's explanation of the equivalent but separate symmetries of the the antiscia on the one hand, and the rulership scheme on the other, I think just begs the question, once more?: I asked if anyone, apart from Fagan, had floated the idea that they could logically be expected to match, to be organised around the same axis.

It turns out Ptolemy did, unambiguously if only implicitly, in the chapter on the "Houses of the Planets"?:

of the twelve signs?the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo

(the zenith of the annual cycle, the most northern point, is of course what is conventionally called the tropic of Capricorn, the "most northern part" being the segments to each side of it, before and after). If one of you who knows Ptolemy well had pointed this chapter out, adding perhaps that "it must be a mistake or an oversight, as elsewhere he is clear that the VP is at 0? Aries, and in various places [e.g. chapter on triplicities] it's clear that he considers Aries to be ruled by Mars, etc", I'd have had my answer straight away: end of story.)

Mark quoted the Almageset and wrote

Ptolemy establishes two things here: that that for the purpose of expressing longitudes the ecliptic is considered as divided into twelve equal arcs of 30? named after the zodiacal constellations, with the degrees counted eastwards, and that these arcs (i.e. zodiacal signs, as distinct from constellations) are fixed such that Aries 0? is the vernal equinoctial point. Thus the frame of reference is strictly tropical.

Yes, I wasn't questioning that, it's very difficult not to confuse the name with the thing it designates, so I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was doing that, as I feel some of you have been. I've tried to make it clear that I was asking (myself, first, but you also) a question not about constellation-derived sign-names, but about the relation between the classical rulership scheme and the annual tropical cycle, as structured by the solstices and equinoxes.

Paul wrote:

I don't think we should necessarily look for causal reasons to explain our astrology (not arguing that you say this) but instead we look for symbolic ones, which could be equally if not more important [...]we could turn this on its head and say that what's not symbolically appropriate is the assignation of planetary rulership, rather than the first sign of the zodiac

. Yes, that's exactly what I mean, and why I raised this issue, and why I hadn't planned to get sidetracked into historical discussion, sidereal v. tropical etc. As Michael says, "Analogy is the foundation of all the occult sciences." This is noticeably true for astrology, surely. I feel that the conventional rulership scheme (in terms of its solar and lunar halves) is not symbolically appropriate in terms of its placement with regard to the solstice axis.

Paul quotes my suggested "common sense" test?: me

try explaining the rulership arrangement to any non-astrology-savvy person (without mentioning sign names, as they'll have heard of those) ; then separately explain the equinoxes and solstices ; then ask them where they would put the latter in the rulership pattern ? It won't be be between Pisces and Aries, I'll bet, more likely between Aries and Taurus.

Paul?:

isn't it a bit leading to talk about equinoxes and solstices and then introduce the rulership scheme? Aren't we leading them to a conclusion? After all, maybe the rulership has nothing to do with the equinox and solstice.

Yes, exactly, maybe it doesn't, but I think it would be more symbolically appropriate if it did. And so does Ptolemy, it seems, at least in passing, in the Chapter on Houses of Planets (when he "forgets" about the constellation names associated with those houses). He does relate them to the solstice, he does seem to think or let slip or at least imply that they "should" have something to do with each other (because they do match up, in this passage.

I feel there's an analogy between the mirror pattern of the antiscia and the mirror pattern of the rulerships scheme, if you don't see an analogy there, fair enough, analogy is rather subjective by nature. But I agree with Michael that "analogy is the foundation of all the occult sciences".

Paul?:

I always read Ptolemy as making an explanation that more or less makes sense to him - not necessarily that this explanation was an accurate description of its development.?
Keep in mind things like antiscia is not based on the zodiac per se, but rather based on declination of the sun, and it's only because so too is the tropical zodiac based on this, that we can make these sign based antiscia matches.

That's what I'm talking about ? what seems to me to make sense, not what is necessarily exactly what happened historically, and right, we both accept that sign-based anticiscia matches are valid, it's just that I don't see a sign-based match between e.g. Gemini and Cancer, but I do between Cancer and Leo, Capricorn and Aquarius etc.

Paul?:

Now we can't simply move this around to suit ourselves, this is an actual astronomical property that we measure - the sun's declination. The only way it would make sense to move to 30? is if the solstice and equinox points are at 30?, because in effect this is what we're measuring here.

Right, but I'm not suggesting we move the solstice points. We could move the rulership scheme to align the two symmettries, as Ptolemy implies in the passage quoted. The rulership scheme is not an actual astronomical property, it's a symbolic arrangement superimposed on an astronomical arrangement.

Concerning the the "correcting of the error" to line the VP up with 0? Aries (Deborah's expression, in "The Classical Basis of Antiscia"), Paul asks what I mean when I wrote

if the error had "accumulated" to 15? and later 8 and 5 Aries, shouldn't we remove the accumulation, rather than adding more, in order to correct it?

and Paul replied

What do you mean? Again, remember that the antiscia points are essentially mirror images along the solstice axis.

. It's really just a question of Deborah's choice of "accumulated", but I meant simply that if an error "accumulates" from 15 to 8 to 5, then you are accumulating more error if you move it 0. You could maybe take it back (unaccumulate it) to 15, or if you want to disconnect from the constellations, as Ptolemy does, and fix it at 0?, you could choose 0? of any sign that seems symbolically appropriate, within the tropical cycle. The fact that horoscopic astrology as such was probably not around when the VP was at 0? Taurus sidereally, should not matter, from a tropical point of view, since the constellation-names are conventions (I do recognise of course that through use by tropical astrologers, the name "Aries" will have acquired meaning, and its own traditional associations).

Anyway, if anyone should happen to want to experiment (you never know...) with the rulership arrangement (in relation to the solstice axis) proposed (perhaps mistakenly) by Ptolemy in The Houses of the Planets, it's a bit awkward to try to think "Taurus" or "house of Venus" when you see the word "Aries" or its glyph.

If you have Delphic Oracle, Curtis has kindly provided an offset tool?: you simply put "30" in the offset box in the options tab, and all chart factors are shifted forward 30?. You can also do it with the Indian freeware Jagannatha Hora, but you can only have South Indian square charts (where the signs are fixed and the Asc moves around clockwise), or North Indian (square like medieval charts, but withe Asc at the top). You just choose "none/tropical" in preferences> ayanamsa, and "minus 30" in offset from that ayanamsa (which again, will move all chart factors 30? forward, since the "ayanamsa" will be 30? les than otherwise).

Michael asked me for the references for the chakra scheme in David Frawley and Ray Grasse.
In Frawley, it's in The Astrology of the Seers, pp. 229-233, chapter on "yogic astrology". He also proposes a very interesting "chakra/yogic" explanation for the exaltation scheme, which is the best hypothesis I've encountered as to the logic of this. He gets in a mess, in my opinion, when he tries to extend the chakra scheme to the houses, because he associates the first house with Aries (as "the first sign", even sidereally, and the whole arrangement loses its symmetry ? back to my original question!)

Although Frawley's book is about sidereal astrology, there's no reason why the scheme shouldn't be applied tropically, as Ray Grasse does in The Waking Dream, Ch 10 (and elsewhere). Grasse also describes the scheme on his site, but (unfortunately?) tries to extend it to include Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, corresponding to other minor chakras. He also divides the "third eye" chakra (ajna) into chandra and ajna, its lunar and solar aspects.
http://innerself.com/content/personal/i ... akras.html

Th?r?se ? you're quite right that Frawley was not really a "disciple" of Yukteswar, I remembered wrongly. He credits Yukteswar as his inspiration for astrology, expresses his preference for the ayanamsa and "system" of Yukteswar as set out in The Holy Science, and draws heavily on him in his discussion of the cycle of world-ages (yuga).

The ayurvedic element/chakra scheme you describe uses just the four elements, and ascribes Mercury to earth, as you point out (rather counter-intuitive to most of us). The more commonly encountered scheme in the West at least, which Frawley and Grasse describe, uses the 5 elements of samkhya darsana (philosophical point of view), which underlies classical yoga, and includes the 5th element "ether" or space (akasha), which is ascribed to Gemini, Virgo and Mercury, with the different aspects of "mindstuff" ascribed to Cancer and Leo / Sun and Moon.

Waybread, I agree that if you think the the most useful analogy to draw with the rulership scheme is not with the cycle of the Sun's maximum and minimum light, but with the temperature cycle in the Egyptian desert, then yes, Leo may well be better started 30? after the summer solstice, as it is conventionally. But even in Egypt the Sun is higher, and burns you more quickly, at the summer solstice than five or six weeks later.

Thanks again for all you comments, they've helped me to clarify my thoughts on this question.

Graham

Graham wrote:

The ayurvedic element/chakra scheme you describe uses just the four elements, and ascribes Mercury to earth, as you point out (rather counter-intuitive to most of us). The more commonly encountered scheme in the West at least, which Frawley and Grasse describe, uses the 5 elements of samkhya darsana (philosophical point of view), which underlies classical yoga, and includes the 5th element "ether" or space (akasha)...

Referring to India's Ayurvedic system in my earlier post, I didn't include "Ether" which would be assigned to Jupiter and the cervical (throat) chakra. In the Ayurvedic system ether is connected to hearing (ear, the sense organ) and speech (action). In India's astrology ether is given to Jupiter. (I will edit my original post to include ether.)

Frawley is working with India's system of Ayurvedic elements. I'm not familiar with Grasse. There isn't really a western system of Ayurvedic elements. There are only western authors such as David Frawley who refer to India's system in their writings and teaching.

David Frawley has invented his own chakra-planet-sign system which surprises me as his correlations don't agree with the traditional teachings of India. The Astrology of the Seers was originally published in 1990. Frawley may have changed his thinking on what he calls "Yogic Astrology" since then.

Edit: 30/12/15: I quickly took a look at the Ray Grasse site. He has come up with his own scheme which he admits. The two chakras he numbers 6 and 7 are actually one chakra which is a polarity. Then he comes up with chakra #8, when all Indian texts describe 7 chakras. Certainly his assignment of planets to the chakras and chakra meanings wouldn't coincide with the Indian planet-element correlations. But this is way off the topic of this thread, which looks like it has come to its conclusion just at the end of 2015.

Hello Graham,

Thanks for your elaborate reply.

I understood and resonated with your topic because I had been wondering about the same question during a time of intense study of the structure of the zodiac.

Of course, there would be no cause for question if today the equinoxes and solstices were still marked by the "four pillar stars" of the ancients, Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut, as in Sumerian astrology. And in principle, we could still define the VP as 0? Taurus, just like most astrologers identify it with 0? Aries. The only problem I have with that is that tropical astrology, the way we know it, works extremely well in my experience!

That's what made me notice that there were at least two different, but analogous, symmetries underlying the zodiac. I am still on the outlook for another symmetrical scheme organized around the mutual cross.

Thanks for the references. Grasse's article you linked is based on what the author said in The Waking Dream. Would you say that it covers everything that Grasse wrote about the topic in that book? In that case, I might only order the other book he mentions, Eastern Systems for Western Astrologers, to which he contributed some material on the practical application of his astrological chakra model. I will also order Frawley's book for sure.

All the best,

Michael

Michael

No, The Waking Dream doesn't really go any more into the chakra scheme than Grasse's web site, a bit less in fact, but I find it a better presentation, and is integrated with the rest of the book (e.g. he looks at a chart he's been using elsewhere in the book to illustrate how the scheme could be used in interpretation). The book I find better in fact: although he describes the "chandra chakra", he then sets this aside in practice and treats the solar and lunar aspects as two polarities (and R/L sides) of the Ajna (3rd eye) chakra, i.e. Sun/Moon (Leo/Cn). .

As Therese says, the most common traditional arrangement of planets/elements in "Vedic" astrology seems to be:
Jupiter - ether
Saturn - air
Mars - fire
Venus - water
Mercury - earth

Perhaps the chakra/element scheme proposed by Frawley and Grasse, and reproduced in many other places and many yoga classes in the west at least, was adopted simply because it correponds neatly to the rulership scheme, to the sequence of planets in terms of distance from the sun, or of orbital periods Moon > Saturn. But if you check out the tattva/indriya scheme of samkhya/yoga philosophy, it does fit nicely with that too , with "mind" (buddhi and manas) associated with sun and moon respectively (manas has the same etymological root as moon).

https://yogastlouisblog.files.wordpress ... esconv.jpg

Another little thought on etymology: in pranayama (yogic breathing) and meditation, the passage from solar to lunar half at "3rd eye" / nostrils level or at the base is called the samkranti, which also means solstice (from two root notions of gathering together/perfecting + proceeding or turning), and later by extension, the change from one astrological sign to another. There was a thread a while ago on Skyscript on samkranti celebrations in India, to which Therese contributed, I think. It questioned whether Indians have got it wrong by celebrating their solstices at the sidereal passages between signs. Opinions were divided, needless to say.

Graham

I've just noticed that in The Waking Dream, Grasse ascribes his chakra scheme to Yogananda, who was a disciple of Yukteswar:

Mystics such as Paramahansa Yogananda regarded this arrangement of the zodiacal signs as the "Cosmic Man".

The addition of the "chandra chakra", thus dividing the two polarities of ajna chakra into two separate centres, he also ascribes to Yogananda:

According to Vedic scholar David Frawley, while there is no direct source in yogic lietrature for the chandra chakra as Yogananda described it, it could be related to the classical idea that the Ajna chakra ("third eye") has two petals, whihc relate to the right and left eyes, governed by the Sun and the Moon".

I'd say we're better off without it.

Graham

Graham wrote:

I've just noticed that in The Waking Dream, Grasse ascribes his chakra scheme to Yogananda, who was a disciple of Yukteswar:
Quote:
Mystics such as Paramahansa Yogananda regarded this arrangement of the zodiacal signs as the "Cosmic Man".

The addition of the "chandra chakra", thus dividing the two polarities of ajna chakra into two separate centres, he also ascribes to Yogananda:
Quote:
According to Vedic scholar David Frawley, while there is no direct source in yogic lietrature for the chandra chakra as Yogananda described it, it could be related to the classical idea that the Ajna chakra ("third eye") has two petals, whihc relate to the right and left eyes, governed by the Sun and the Moon".

I joined this conversation because I didn't want to see Sri Yukteswar and Yogananda misquoted. I've been a disciple on Yogananda's Kriya Yoga path since 1975, which means that I have everything that has ever been published by SRF/Self Realization Fellowship (Yogananda's organization) and Ananda (founded by Kriyananda aka Donald Walters) on the chakras.

The earliest I've seen the "too pat" planet-sign-chakra scheme being discussed here was in Kriyananda's Yoga lessons first published in the 1970s. He presented this scheme purely as speculation. This shows how easily disciples can depart from the fundamental teachings of the guru. Kriyananda wasn't an astrologer, but like many in the 1970s, he had a passing interest in astrology.

The alignment scheme diagrammed in this thread can't be reconciled with the diagrams of the chakras in SRF's publication of God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita (1995) based on earlier articles and teachings by Yogananda. Massive research went into this two volume publication of over 1000 pages. The chakras are discussed in various chapters of these volumes. In Chapter 1, Verse 1 there are two diagrams of the chakras which align the Ayurvedic organs of sense and actions with the chakras and parts of the body. (Such as the "tactile estate" is placed with the Dorsal center in the heart area.)

There has never been anything in print aligning specific planets and signs with the chakras attributed to Yogananda or Sri Yukteswar. There are only disciples with their own opinions and speculations. God Talks with Arjuna does discuss various psychological attributes in relation to the chakras, and also deities are assigned to each chakra. But planets and zodiac signs: not a word except to state that there is a correlation of six signs (twelve by polarity) with the six lower chakras. (If anyone asks, I can find that quote.)

I'm sure this passing reference to signs of the zodiac and chakras has caused extreme frustration to many disciples (including myself), as this statement was never elaborated upon. Yogananda had little or no interest in astrology, and instructed an astrological disciple (Tara Mata) to leave astrology alone. So no planet-sign-chakra correlation comes from Yogananda or Sri Yukteswar.

Graham, I'm not clear on what the "chandra chakra" is? That term isn't in Yogananda's writings.

Th?r?se - "chandra chakra" is mentioned on Grasse's site, and in his book . You referred to it earlier, as his addition of number 7. You implied that it was not a helpful addition for what is more often considered one chakra (ajna) with lunar and solar polarities. If that's what you meant, I agree.
Thanks for clarifying re Yogananda.
Graham

Thanks, Graham. I didn't take much time looking at the Grasse site, so missed "Chandra chakra." I'm not sure if the ajna chakra is traditionally considered to have lunar and solar polarities, but that is another question. The medulla is the polarity of the third eye in Yogananda's teaching and writings. (I think this is simply the traditional chakra teaching of India.) We are taught various ways of focusing and using energy in relation to those two energy locations.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Of course, there would be no cause for question if today the equinoxes and solstices were still marked by the "four pillar stars" of the ancients, Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut, as in Sumerian astrology.

Hi Michael,

I would be interested in any sources you have that support a Sumerian use of these stars in that way. Certainly the commonly used term 'Persian Royal Stars' in relation to explicitly Aldebaran, Regulus, Antares and Fomalhaut was shown to be an error decades ago. The identity of these stars is far from clear or agreed upon by researchers. It is therefore disappointing to see supposed authorities on fixed stars such as Bernadette Brady still confidently repeating such outdated notions in her book on the subject. That is not to deny that these stars later assumed this kind of role in hellenistic astrology and sources like Firmicus Maternus explicity refer to these stars as 'royal stars'. But a Sumerian origin to this? That is something I would like to see some evidence for.

Thanks

Mark