Moderator
Was Blavatsky right that astrology is true?
Madame Blavatsky (HPB) seemed to say sidereal astrology is true but tropical may not be: she at least described how it is less accurate. I still see many non-Indian theosophists sticking to tropical astrology and misunderstanding sidereal, which of course has to use 360 degrees, though a friend I discussed it with did not seem to realize. However I am getting off-topic.
HPB may have said astrology is true and that some other divination is not, but she said to be skeptical. I am skeptical and think astrology is not reasonable beyond its fundamental idea that heavenly bodies exert forces.
I will not even get into why tropical astrology is unreasonable because my skepticism of sidereal will use a few of the same points. How many ways can you divide up Earth's orbit around Sun, and what would the number for each way represent? (numerologies have useful ideas about a series of numbers out of infinity from zero to however far the numerology goes.) The simplest is the orbit can be divided into two either from perihelion or halfway. There are probably several other ways beyond two that might have some useful symbolism. However, what astrological systems mainly do are divide up the orbit according to arbitrary constellations from pre-civilized people. One idea Ken Wilber has is the pre/trans fallacy. Pre-rational ideas may not have any rational interpretation. So, how are constellations from pre-civilized people or even civilized ones carrying on imaginary traditions rational? I think they are not. There is no natural unit of time that really corresponds to the divisions in sidereal astrology. There certainly is not one in tropical because it is not even based on current time but alignments about 2000 years out of date, and not even Earth's orbit.
I do not deny that all matter in the universe is in equilibrium in which all bodies of it exert a force on all others. So, heavenly bodies affect us. However, saying constellations, which are not bodies, affect us is pre-rational. Maybe it is not even worth dividing up Earth's orbit unless you divide it into a place for every known star. I do not know if dividing it in two leads to any astrological truth, and certainly dividing it in four does not correspond to the seasons because perihelion & aphelion are not solstice & equinox. There could be infinite ways to divide the orbit, and it depends on whether space is boundless or if anything outside the light-cone of the known universe affects Earth.
It is interesting to find a meaning for each number from one to the number of Sanskrit letters, but I am not sure Pythagoras was right by being preoccupied with the symbolism of one to ten. One later mathematician was killed for proving irrational numbers exist, and why would any natural one be more important than the uncountably infinite irrationals? I just wanted to say non-name numerology in a scientific context may be more interesting than astrology. That could include numerological interpretation of sacred texts, but we might find out that it is as unreliable as astrology. Of course the texts may have hidden meanings, but who knows if it is of more than historical use. I guess one could say astrology is of the same historical use, but I wanted to point out these skeptical ideas even if HPB said astrology was true. Maybe it is only true to the extent it is based on physics, which is the basic idea (though physicists try to deny it all) and nothing more.
HPB may have said astrology is true and that some other divination is not, but she said to be skeptical. I am skeptical and think astrology is not reasonable beyond its fundamental idea that heavenly bodies exert forces.
I will not even get into why tropical astrology is unreasonable because my skepticism of sidereal will use a few of the same points. How many ways can you divide up Earth's orbit around Sun, and what would the number for each way represent? (numerologies have useful ideas about a series of numbers out of infinity from zero to however far the numerology goes.) The simplest is the orbit can be divided into two either from perihelion or halfway. There are probably several other ways beyond two that might have some useful symbolism. However, what astrological systems mainly do are divide up the orbit according to arbitrary constellations from pre-civilized people. One idea Ken Wilber has is the pre/trans fallacy. Pre-rational ideas may not have any rational interpretation. So, how are constellations from pre-civilized people or even civilized ones carrying on imaginary traditions rational? I think they are not. There is no natural unit of time that really corresponds to the divisions in sidereal astrology. There certainly is not one in tropical because it is not even based on current time but alignments about 2000 years out of date, and not even Earth's orbit.
I do not deny that all matter in the universe is in equilibrium in which all bodies of it exert a force on all others. So, heavenly bodies affect us. However, saying constellations, which are not bodies, affect us is pre-rational. Maybe it is not even worth dividing up Earth's orbit unless you divide it into a place for every known star. I do not know if dividing it in two leads to any astrological truth, and certainly dividing it in four does not correspond to the seasons because perihelion & aphelion are not solstice & equinox. There could be infinite ways to divide the orbit, and it depends on whether space is boundless or if anything outside the light-cone of the known universe affects Earth.
It is interesting to find a meaning for each number from one to the number of Sanskrit letters, but I am not sure Pythagoras was right by being preoccupied with the symbolism of one to ten. One later mathematician was killed for proving irrational numbers exist, and why would any natural one be more important than the uncountably infinite irrationals? I just wanted to say non-name numerology in a scientific context may be more interesting than astrology. That could include numerological interpretation of sacred texts, but we might find out that it is as unreliable as astrology. Of course the texts may have hidden meanings, but who knows if it is of more than historical use. I guess one could say astrology is of the same historical use, but I wanted to point out these skeptical ideas even if HPB said astrology was true. Maybe it is only true to the extent it is based on physics, which is the basic idea (though physicists try to deny it all) and nothing more.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by KC Griffin on
-
We are all, in effect, a reflection of the heavens [ie the Universe] at the exact moment we take our first breath [ie the neheshma: the living spirit] we are inherently born with qualities some might call Karmic --- although I deem fate to be the natural course of all things created through causality as spacio-temprally manifested itterations of a fractal human psyche upon One Life .... a Cosmic Tapestry upon which history unfolds according to the pattern we call natural law..... but I digress and then some GoDamn Im no good at linear expression]
Moving on...... we carry within us the whole of creation focused on the point in space and time in which we are born. If that isn’t being created in God’s image- I don’t know what is. As above so below is more True than any card carrying Christian would ever dare conceive let alone concede poor fools who see thought as risking their immortal souls............
alright that's all folks and not another letter typed tonight I anticipate enough trouble as it is..
this message brought to you by: RedShifty
-
Permalink Reply by EstrellaFugaz on
-
eeee....
I'm still astonished by Christina Estelmaker's diagram. (Still babbling about the explanation of the system above that she's saying...probing again my naiveness in Theosophy, again!! - and i knew i knew it all in Theosophy... )
Still a lot to learn. thanks Christina for probing again my ignorance. that's good.
cheers all. (I'll write when i can UNDERSTAND a bit what Christina tried to say)
-
-
So, the contradicts contradict themselves?? so then, they accept finaly the Mahatma's statements, in that diagram?
It is very profound, but i want to know if is accurate...or how accurate it is...
-
-
Too early to be from the occult brotherhood of the white lodge? so? who's diagram would be? the "occult brotherhood" founders??? Some powerful magicians of 'days of yore' ? or even BEFORE them??
????
Questions...still it is a VERY COMPLICATED DIAGRAM to be left unseen... the last time I've seen something so complicated, was the diagram included in Olaf Stapledon's 'Star Maker'. Have you ever read it?
Cheers
Estrella
-
-
BTW, i like this writing pad. Does not auto correct the language errors, but it makes you see the mistakes you make in English, so you can correct them. for a non-born English speaker, that's very good, David. heheehehe *snoopy's laugh*
Estrella
-
-
Just the post of Christina it is SO GOOD, that i'll have to save it for a later approach.
(When i can finish decipher the basic stuff, like "Dyan Chohans" and some catchy words like that.)
Cheers
Estrella
-
Permalink Reply by Lori Tompkins on
-
In an essay on astrology which I recently read (and posted on my blog), Sri Aurobindo refered to Kalaprakasika - a book on astrology by Sir Subramania Iyer. Iyer defined the Zodiac in terms of the Tropical Year. He was an Indian so wondered why he did not base his astrology on the Sidereal/constellation as do most modern Indian astrologers. Then I found out he was Vice President of the Theosophical Society from 1907 to 1911 (during Dr Annie Besant’s tenure as President) ... so I wondered if the Theosophical tradition leaned in the direction of the Tropical Zodiac. Then I saw David's post above where in he says HPB leaned towards the Sidereal Zodiac. Does anyone know more about the history of how the Tropical Zodiac has been held/considered by the Theosophical Society??? My own interest in the matter (Tropical vs. Sidereal) comes from my study of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet who writes that the TRUE Vedic astrology (not what currently goes by that name) is forever linked to the stable base/cardinal cross of the Equinoxes and Solstices. Her recent presentation (See LINK) at the First National Panchanga Ganitam (Calendar Reform) Conference in India, expresses this point of view in full.
-
Permalink Reply by Heidi Ann Maycroft on
-
Peter,
The concept you bring out regarding destiny is powerful. To step back and take-in the non-personal; to apply knowledge where it is appropriate might be key within a field as broad as astrology--while it's nature is personal, the implications are universal and apply also to the greater "picture".
[I hope my lack of communications skills does not obscure the powerful message of your post] You state a powerful universal principle, which individuals might benefit from heeding: As above, so below.
Thank you Peter for some stimulating thought!
tilnext
me
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
