[jsun]

… it turns into that. I think it is simply a part of the culture though, this is all I’m saying. Most people in our culture ‘live on video’, they reference constantly something they have seen and they try to get it to live in themselves, their thoughts constantly dwelling on it even though it’s fake, so to me porn is just a symptom of a wider thing – or maybe it’s the ultimate endpoint, where you put your penis in the matrix and have the wires massage it and call it love! I must admit I’m not an expert on porn addiction.

I would say that a spiritual person only needs to fully understand the experience to be right back in play with their true self again. Work through it, consciously notice it, learn, then dismiss it. The problem with people who don’t work on themselves is that they just keep piling up more and more stuff which they never process. j

[jsun]

>>It seems less personally orientated and more concerned with events and or health related applications.<>Also my statement about potential was not about equal potential but more like equal opportunity to explorer ones own potential.<>Can you recommend a good source for western sidereal astrology, my Kepler astrology program does switch between tropical and sidereal but I have never had any use for it.<<

There's not much out there TBH. I am, I hope, going to be learning from Ken Bowser, he's a great place to start. You have to read Cyril Fagan's books, if you can find those. Apart from that, and avoiding (for my money) anyone calling themselves 'Gramalkin', just see what you dig up. Google 'Lunar Planner' for an interesting site, I just found this and realized there was someone already into lunary planning in great depth and sidereally too, but I don't think he 'does charts'.

j

[jsun]

[jsun]

[jsun]

… excellent. I particularly enjoyed this part:

>>All living beings, due to their upside-down states and false thoughts, commit the deeds that will lead them to hell without awareness of it, and enthusiastically throw themselves into the river of love.<>however, the good are originally not different than the bad<>If you pass the test, the heavenly beings will nominate you, and the demon kings will be convinced and respect you. That is called the Achievement of Tao.<>You should not dislike being poor and unknown to public, because inside them are excellent flavors.<<

…. ? 🙂 j

[jsun]

[jsun]

… to look at it this way, although when you say:

>>They maybe had an old model so that this develpopment of mixing signs could develope beacase the modern times is more complex and the new system developing from it was more evolved in some sence.<<

… I'm not exactly sure who 'they' are.

Yes if you want to look at it that way there's no reason why not. I wouldn't look at it that way myself. j

[jsun]

… I don’t think that that my suggestions were in any way extreme. There are those who say that there will be permanent riot and anarchy!… go to some peak oil sites if you don’t believe me. I don’t think anything like that… I do think it’s smart to look at the facts and it would be remiss of me not to mention this. j

[jsun]

… I’ll tell you what I mean by right and wrong but it’s not to do with this:

>>I find that my approach leaves open the opportunity for all people to find their potential equally without any fixed idea of better or worse, right or wrong as jsun states.<<

I don't look at it in these terms at all, what is there about a person in the chart that is more or less limiting. People are welcome to act as they wish and find the potentials that are in them. If it's being implied that all people have equal potential I wouldn't agree at all, but it is not to 'take away anyone's potential' that I go with one system or another!

I am somebody who wants to see what's there in the chart and I feel some charts show what's there and some don't. To be frank there have been experiments done where people were randomly shown interpretations from other people's charts and said they thought they themselves fitted the descriptions – these were young people though I admit. The mind catches onto an idea.

When you tell a person, you are this kind of person, that's something pretty vague you're telling them. If it's in this sense that one uses astrology – well anything might be right or at least interesting. But I am looking at what is really there; astrologers used to diagnose from the time of illness of the patient. This is either right or it's wrong.

In magic, in medical astrology, and in locational astrology, for example, you have to get it right, that is, if you say: "You my friend have gallstones, take lecithin, you will be happy the next ten years in Paris, Texas, and in 22 minutes' time this will be the perfect moment for me to do a blessing for you to send you luckily on your way thither' – well if I do these things from a tropical chart I have found they contain inaccuracies. It's that simple. That is the way ancients used astrology. To see the energies, not to judge the person.

On psychology, when one speaks of a person's 'potentials' and 'proclivities', the this-might-happens, the watch-the-tendency-tos, there is alot of wiggle-room. But when it comes to the things that are interesting to me, there's alot less. It's certainly not that the person is better or worse, right or wrong, but the system may well be in what matters. If I can look at a chart and say, you fell in love for the first time in March of 1993, and I'm right, that chart has something right about it which has nothing to do with psychology and everything to do with worldly destiny, which is how I see it and what I look for.

BTW Vedic astrology although it's sidereal as well is not what I study, I am studying western sidereal astrology coming ultimately from a Babylon approach. Chinese astrology is completely different and I know nothing about it, however I know charts are being offered here on this very site actually. j

[jsun]

… it requires a more radical overhaul than the quick fix. That’s what I’m working on, fortunately there are many people of better skill than me who have made this their life’s work, so I can count on them to have some idea of the meanings. To put this form of astrology out there at least means you can compare it with what is said in the tropical variety that 99% of people still use in the west. On timings in particular, the impression I have of increased accuracy is startling. On things like the delineation of character I will have to wait until I’ve relearned my trigonometry!

>>There might be some spiritual significance to why the new system has been used since the midle age. I can’t hardly belive there isn’t more deeper synchronicity into this than just the theory that its beacase the astrology wasn’t a big subject during this time.<>Even if, there should be some significant spiritual meening to why the system used did change.<>Of course this is not a theory a strict astrologer would prefer. Maybe just thinking if we go back to the original knowledge everything will be fine.<<

Well I don't think it is possible to go back to all of the original knowledge myself, I believe the basic principles have got to be constantly looked at and the work has got to be done on why things are the way they are. It's a classic case of scientific paradigm shifting a la Thomas Kuhn.

Astrological knowledge is very locale-specific in its highest forms; civilizations form around their understanding of seasonal movements, cycles and so forth. To reconstruct all of that isn't necessary at this time, I don't think, but if we can show greater accuracy in astrology by linking it back to astronomy we are in better shape. All we have to do is look at what is really there, the magical and alchemical applications will come out as well, it is an age when these things are meant to be rediscovered. j

[jsun]

Each sign is thirty degrees, if you are anywhere in the first 25 degrees I think for sure you can say sidereally you are in the previous sign. According to my teacher, from whom I’ve learned very little yet, the conversion of a whole tropical chart to a sidereal one is alot more difficult. Different kinds of astronomy are used apparently, the house cusps are different, elevation of the planets above the horizon and method calculation of the horizon and ecliptic are important – still if you move everything back 24 or 25 degrees you will have some idea.

In my opinion the difficulty comes when you try to define the meanings. In this ‘psychological era’ of astrology many of the signs’ meanings have moved away from what is strictly relevant in their definitions IMHO, and from what the ancients said about them; the ‘new wave’ of astrologers is much more scholarly than before and is consulting documents as far back as they go. It puts the natures of the signs in a different light.

The sign of virgo is sometimes now considered to have elements of being strong and overbearing for example, or the sign of scorpio has moved from being considered the strongly sexual sign which brooks no arguments to being sweet and loving. My teacher reckons these are the results of actual observations of the signs’ effects, but of the wrong sign – Scorpio has taken on elements of gentle Libra whilst Virgo has acquired some of the elements of Leo. In other words he thinks the entire system of description is out of whack now, just as the tropical system is out of whack with the sky itself.

I certainly see his point. Dick Cheney for example, I have a problem seeing him as a liberal, bohemian, humanitarian, rebellious Aquarius, but as a Capricorn, which is what he would be sidereally, he makes sense. My youngest is sister is supposedly Leo but quite plainly is a Cancer, and she was very relieved to hear it – she had a great problem understanding how she was supposed to be so showy according to the books!

I think the change to seeing things this way will be rather slow in astrology, because it is slow in general to realize the importance of astronomy – bizarrely enough! But even more, for the reason change is always difficult in something settled – people don’t like moving out of their comfort zone even if they know they must and will be happier when they have. It relates to the love conversation and to the industrial culture conversation as well therefore. j

That is how tropical Virgo becomes strong and overbearing, Aries gentle and sensitive or Capricorn formal and ambitious, etc. They are Leo, Pisces and Sagittary misnamed, which corruption eventually produces a meaningless hodgepodge to the great detriment of Art.

[jsun]

>>It’s also interesting to ad some spirituality to the matter you studying<<

… the entire point of spirituality being that it applies everywhere to everything! I had a similar feeling to you at school, in regards to the nature of numbers, in chemistry lessons doing distillations… all seemed in some way deep or moving or beautiful or to have profundity that went beyond what was being taught. As for biology, well, I'm sure I don't have to talk about that here! j

[jsun]

Here is a list of historical personages, without exception famous for their generalship and the role they played in waging and winning wars, their leadership and monarchy gifts, their tyranny, etc. The list comes from Cyril Fagan, the great Irish astrologer who did so much to put western sidereal astrology back on the agenda. He writes:

>>Seeing that the Sun, significator of kingship, is exalted in the imperial Aries, and that this constellation is ruled by Mars, the war lord, it is not surprising to find that some of the world’s greatest kings, dictators, tyrants, autocrats, and power politicians were born with the Sun in this constellation<<

Here is the list he gives, with degree of sun in Aries:

Charlemagne (8°)
Edward II (27)
Don Pedro I (20)
Richard II (16)
Catherine de Medici (14)
Philip III (16)
Earl of Strafford (13)
Oliver Cromwell (25)
Catherine II of Russia (21)
Robespierre (24)
Napoleon III (8)
Alexander II (17)
Karl Marx (22)
Boulanger (17)
Petain (13)
Lenin (10)
Admiral von Raeder (12)
Adolf Hitler (8)
J. von Ribbentrop (17)
Rudolf Hess (14)

The kicker though is this: if their charts are done *tropically*, that is, using the standard western system of today, each of these people are seen to have the sun in Taurus. Taurus is ruled by Venus and the moon is exalted in it – it is as far from being warlike as could be imagined. The ancients always insisted that that Aries was a sign of war, rulership and monarchy, they never said any such thing about Taurus. The idea that any of these people had the sun in Taurus to me makes a complete mockery of astrology!

If you know people who think they are Taureans who are also domineering, commanding persons, in my opinion it is quite likely their suns are really in Aries.

I give all this info to lend colour to my rejection of DamonM's view, although of course he's perfectly entitled to it – but I don't agree that one chart is as useful as another; I think some are right and some are wrong, and that astrology can be a very accurate science if the correct methods are followed. Thus I do find that predictive astrology is of profound help if the techniques used are correct; magicians often time things by the stars and therefore they are seen to be important for understanding the nature of the moment on the earth.

I believe our understanding of it may be evolving, but has not yet reached the heights of Egypt and Babylon.

As part of what I'm learning I will also be understanding 'astrocartography', that is, the science of predicting where on earth a person's interests will be best-served and where they will enjoy the best life, where the energies are most in harmony for them, and so on. If I get good at this I might offer it as a service to others. I believe astrology in general can provide great help in life, not only in that way, but also in medicine for example. We have barely scratched the surface yet of what it can do.

j

[jsun]

I am learning sidereal astrology from an excellent astrologer.

For some reason I am a person whom people confide in. When I first contacted this teacher he told me his house was in difficulty because his lady had just been diagnosed with a very unpleasant disease. Later, he told me confidentially that the moment the tests came back positive, a certain conjunction occurred in her chart. This conjunction would have been months out tropically, but sidereally it was correct almost to the minute. This is the power of looking at what is actually in the sky.

We don’t need to look too far to find out why western astrology stopped doing that, it’s no conspiracy IMHO. Ptolemy was not an astronomer, although a great mathematician – he codified western astrology at a time when the tropical signs were indeed in alignment with the constellations in the sky, so there was no error working that way in his day. Then suddenly we had the dark ages, and the christians were never interested in astrology. It took years to piece it back together, we are still doing this. As a magician, it always puzzled me that when the moon was supposed to be ‘in Cancer’, you could see it wasn’t! But sidereally it checks out, and alot of timings check out.

My teacher tells me he has successfully called every American election since becoming a sidereal astrologer. If I learn enough before the next one maybe I will make a prediction here on the forum.

I find western astrology mostly too vague, too psychological at the moment. What we have in astrology is something completely real, we have to understand the reality of it and not be fooled by ‘psychology’ IMHO. Alot of it is doubtful and the more self-knowledge I gain the more doubt I have in it. The movements of the stars are precise; if nothing else their timings are accurate.

Dog is completely right to say certain things have been lost; in this age of re-discovery of the sacred though, they are coming back to light. For example there is always great doubt in conventional western astrology why exaltations occur in certain places – in Babylon it turns out that planetary exaltations were timed with great public festivals and rituals, in other words it was part of an alchemical/magical system.

Our western approach has been steadily less and less accurate for the last two thousand years, since we have taken the approach that the ‘signs of the zodiac’ are arbitrary divisions in the sky counted from the earth’s movement only. (This is bizarre of us since in this we follow the greeks who never even realized that the earth moves at all!) In my opinion it is dead wrong. The zodiac signs represent the constellations after which they are named, and should be moving with them, precessionally.

j

[jsun]

>>It really makes me feel like we’d be better off
in a lot of ways if we just rejected a lot of
this and returned to a simpler more deliberate way of living.<<

IMHO we won't have any choice about doing this and indeed I think it would be smart to start now, or within a year from today, if you want to settle early into a new life and be set up. Pick somewhere at least 100 foot above sea level, a small town but not too far from the biggest city, with farms around you, start growing stuff, and learn to heal yourself without the use of mains electricity or mass-produced drugs; just my thoughts. Learn skills that will be valuable.

The weakness of the dollar at the moment may mean civil unrest in the US before long, or the other shoe may not drop just yet. China is now moving towards not buying dollars because of the weakness of the currency. In the US the subprime mortgage collapse continues, part of an ongoing realization that paper shuffling and promises of payment amount to nothing in terms of actual financial power.

Nearly every raw material in the world has shot up in price since August. Crude has gone up $25/barrel. George Bush no less has admitted the reason is simply that there is now no longer enough supply of oil to meet demand. We are past Hubbert's Peak, the theoretical point at which there is less oil in the earth than we have used. This particular civilization runs entirely off that oil. That's not to say there will be instant meltdown, nor that technological innovation won't help out. But people who feel there will be no rocky period in my opinion are fooling themselves.

j

[Author]

Posts