Is a retrograde planet really weak ?

Martine

Is a retrograde planet really weak ?

1 by Martine

Hello

I have a problem with retrograde planets. I also practise Indian astrology, and for some Indian authors, especially Iyer, retrograde planets are very strong because they are nearer the earth.

Hank Friedman, who explains some of Iyer?s techniques on his site <http>, says that this is a mistake, due to a confusion between horary and natal astrology. A retrograde planet can give a negative answer in horary, but it is strong in a natal chart.

I would like to read some opinions on this subject. I have looked up a few celebrity charts and their retrograde planets did not seem weak to me.

Martine

Martine

2 by Martine

The site of Hank Friedman is http://www.soulhealing.com.

Martine

yuzuru

3 by yuzuru

Hi, Martine
Is my believe that is usually not a good practice to mix concepts of Indian astrology with western astrology. Most of the time you will find similitudes, but also very hard differences and you will not be able to conciliate them.

So it is better just to choose one and work with them, or to memorize the two and "switch" between them as necessary, but I don?t think that you will find a point where they both "need" to agree.

Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

Martine

4 by Martine

Hi Yuzuru

Yes, I agree, one should not mix two different astrologies. But Hank Friedmahn practises both Indian and Western astrologies, and his remark about the retrograde planet being nearer the earth refers only to astronomy. Also what he says about not mixing horary with natal astrology seems to me worth an inquiry.

In any case, I have been looking at some celebrity charts. Take Agatha Christie, for example, her Jupiter is retrograde but she ended up a very wealthy woman.

Martine

###

5 by ###

If it's OK to voice our opinions here ...

... I've found that many ? maybe even most ? of those who practice both Western and Indian astrology end up with a slippery muddy mess. I suppose it can be done, but usually only with a widely aimed slide toward conclusions.

Take Agatha Christie, for example, her Jupiter is retrograde but she ended up a very wealthy woman.

That's a matter of universal vs. accidental significators. You aren't considering the 2nd house and its lord, the Part of Fortune, the condition and placement of the lights and their relationship to each other, and other factors that may have traditionally been considered concerning wealth. It therefore isn't so much merely a matter of a retrograde Jupiter.

Tom

6 by Tom

That's [Jupiter Rx] a matter of universal vs. accidental significators.

And a mild vindication of Morin's assertion that universal significators aren't worth very much as stand alones. I have a powerful Jupiter direct in motion, in domicile, in a good house, trine the ASC free from harsh aspects from the malefics and I'm not rich. To whom do I complain?

Tom

Papretis

7 by Papretis

According to my observations retrogradation makes a planet a bit aggressive, unwilling and uncapable of cooperation and willing to go its own way against the grain. I think there are hints about this in traditional texts, but I cannot give exact quotes right now. So a retro planet is kind of stronger, but not in a balanced way.

Statistically speaking psychotic people, bigots, aggressive personalities, assaulters and military pilots among others have slightly more often than averagely one or more of the five traditional planets retrograde in their horoscopes (data from ADB 4).

Sari

PallasAthene

8 by PallasAthene

Apparently all the Generals of World War II had Pluto Rx. But I haven't checked as my history isn't good enough and I don't know their names : )
But Churchill definitely did.

Tom

9 by Tom

Pluto is retrograde about 50% of the time. So roughly half the population has it Rx. Neptune isn't too far behind. Having the outer planets retrograde is too common to make any generalizations about them.

Tom

PallasAthene

10 by PallasAthene

Fair dos! But you'd still expect only half to have that placement then..(if that "fact" is actually true).

11 by Deb

As a 'rough and ready' principle, Pluto is direct in summer, retrograde in winter.

As far as I understand, the traditional western approach to retrograde planets is consistent across all its branches. A retrograde planet is debilitated, but not necessarily weak. It is expected to be erratic - it causes delays and preventions because some aspects that would have perfected, now don't; or it makes things that were expected to occur happen more suddenly, because the planets mutually apply.

No one enjoys doing things 'backwards' but there is a magical principle that if you really want to concentrate on something and put your whole mind into it, you do it backwards. That way you have to focus and your mind doesn?t get stuck in the groove of the expected. This also fits with the connection between retrograde motion and unexpected events or unanticipated results. The drawback is, because there is this element of uncertainty, we are not able to rely on a retrograde planet fitting into the usual flow of things, and this is why retrograde planets are generally viewed with suspicion. The overall state of the planet and the rest of the chart help to describe whether the effect, being 'outside the norm' will cause shock and grief or whether there is a chance that it might cause sudden excitement and surprise.

Eddy

12 by Eddy

Tom wrote:Pluto is retrograde about 50% of the time. So roughly half the population has it Rx. Neptune isn't too far behind. Having the outer planets retrograde is too common to make any generalizations about them.

Tom

This reminds me of the fact that the fixed stars too are always retrograde during almost exactly one half of the year. This is known as the stellar parallax. Here's a nice motion picture explaining it: http://sci2.esa.int/interactive/media/flashes/2_1_1.htm