Guest guest Posted June 25, 2000 Report Share Posted June 25, 2000 In a message dated 06/25/2000 9:29:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, skinbags writes: << I feel one of the biggest problems is the people who have been western astrologers and then changed to become Vedic astrologers. They still cling to certain aspects of their former craft rather than coming out and admitting they have mislead and misinformed people for all the years they were casting charts with the tropical zodiac. >> . Oh, boy. I am a Western astrologer who is now learning Vedic. Are you of the opinion that the entire Western tradition is simply wrong? Astrology has always been a way for me to understand my inner mechanics and other people's behavior -- I have no interest though, in explaining others to themsleves, which is where the problem of being 'right' or 'wrong' comes in. Do you think that the person who takes meaning away from a book on Western astrology, or a Western reading, is then operating with the wrong meaning? This is an interesting concept, since in the Western tradition much stress is placed on personal resonance and healing -- and I can't see how this could be 'wrong', or for that matter, how any reasonably helpful self-concept could be wrong. You know, I have a terrible relationship with my mother, and in a lot of somewhat invisible ways this relationship has ruined my life. I've worked very hard to get over this, I've tried everything to get over or through or past it, but it's just permanent, the way I feel about it. It wasn't until I did my mother's Western chart that I saw her Aries moon in the twelfth house and her Taurus ascendant, and reading them in the Western tradition really helped me a lot to understand, at least, why she is the way she is, and what happens when my scorpio (western) moon faces off with this Aries, passive-aggressive in the twelfth, but deadly combative nonetheless. So that's the Western tradition, with an emphasis on understanding. It helps, when you are hurt, to understand why. I think the emphasis on psychology in the Western tradition is there because we are a psychological bunch, us Westerners. Astrology in the states has evolved into a jungian psychlogical tool, a way to understand the self through symbols. If you're not interested in this, or feel it really can't be useful to you, a western style lecture on "relationships" probably made you insane with frustration; your framework was simply different than the other people's in the room. As western to vedic astrologer has to switch mileus depending on who he is speaking to, because the very approach to reality in each system is very different. It's like changing dimensions. It might have been too much for this lecturer to accomplish, to rearrange the reality of her audience. I certainly wouldn't want to do it. . Love, Vox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2000 Report Share Posted June 25, 2000 Dear Das, Astrology will never have any credibility as long as western astrology in its present form is around. This psuedo-psychological hogwash they insist on pushing out is infuriating to me as a serious Vedic astrologer. I feel one of the biggest problems is the people who have been western astrologers and then changed to become Vedic astrologers. They still cling to certain aspects of their former craft rather than coming out and admitting they have mislead and misinformed people for all the years they were casting charts with the tropical zodiac. I only recently had the misfortune to attend a lecture here in Australia with one particular woman, (who shall remain unnamed), who is hailed as a Vedic astrologer in America, but changed into a western astrologer at this workshop because the room was full of western astrologers. She was simply pathetic as all we got was a hybrid of western and Vedic astrology that made no sense. The workshop was suppossed to be on relationships and judging by the nonsense she was spruiking it was obvious she had little experience of either love or sexual relationships. When I returned home my old Pundit called me and asked "Did you ask her how many relationships she had destroyed?" If he'd only known how right he was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2000 Report Share Posted June 25, 2000 gjlist , VoxIndigo@a... wrote: > In a message dated 06/25/2000 9:29:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > skinbags@o... writes: > > << I feel one of the biggest problems is the people > who have been western astrologers and then changed to become Vedic > astrologers. They still cling to certain aspects of their former > craft rather than coming out and admitting they have mislead and > misinformed people for all the years they were casting charts with > the tropical zodiac. >> > > . Oh, boy. I am a Western astrologer who is now learning Vedic. Are you > of the opinion that the entire Western tradition is simply wrong? Astrology > has always been a way for me to understand my inner mechanics and other > people's behavior -- I have no interest though, in explaining others to > themsleves, which is where the problem of being 'right' or 'wrong' comes in. > > Do you think that the person who takes meaning away from a book on Western > astrology, or a Western reading, is then operating with the wrong meaning? > This is an interesting concept, since in the Western tradition much stress is > placed on personal resonance and healing -- and I can't see how this could be > 'wrong', or for that matter, how any reasonably helpful self- concept could be > wrong. > > You know, I have a terrible relationship with my mother, and in a lot of > somewhat invisible ways this relationship has ruined my life. I've worked > very hard to get over this, I've tried everything to get over or through or > past it, but it's just permanent, the way I feel about it. It wasn't until I > did my mother's Western chart that I saw her Aries moon in the twelfth house > and her Taurus ascendant, and reading them in the Western tradition really > helped me a lot to understand, at least, why she is the way she is, and what > happens when my scorpio (western) moon faces off with this Aries, > passive-aggressive in the twelfth, but deadly combative nonetheless. So > that's the Western tradition, with an emphasis on understanding. It helps, > when you are hurt, to understand why. > > I think the emphasis on psychology in the Western tradition is there because > we are a psychological bunch, us Westerners. Astrology in the states has > evolved into a jungian psychlogical tool, a way to understand the self > through symbols. If you're not interested in this, or feel it really can't be > useful to you, a western style lecture on "relationships" probably made you > insane with frustration; your framework was simply different than the other > people's in the room. As western to vedic astrologer has to switch mileus > depending on who he is speaking to, because the very approach to reality in > each system is very different. It's like changing dimensions. > > It might have been too much for this lecturer to accomplish, to rearrange > the reality of her audience. I certainly wouldn't want to do it. . > > Love, > > Vox Don't take me too seriously Vox!! I was born with Jupiter, Mars and Mercury in the ascendent and my Navamsha ascendent is Aries with Mars exalted in the 10th house with Mercury and Rahu, so I'm a red hot Mars man. My tongue is far too sharp for my own good!! I really have no problem with people changing to Vedic astrology but leave Chiron and mid points and some of the other stuff behind. We haven't even observed one full cycle of Pluto yet, so lets stop there for now. Put up your chart details so I can see what the story with your mother is, I have had a shocking relationship with my Mother also. Sorry if I upset anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2000 Report Share Posted June 25, 2000 Hi Vox, What you said, actually said, is all well and good. You basically pointed out alot of the side benefits of being involved in the astrological process, which does take place in Western Astrology, and that process is revealing by nature, and leads one to things which are good for us all. The specific point though is that astronomers are always going to have problems with the Western Zodiac, because when they say "Aries", they mean "those specific stars", and Sidereal is that real zodiac, so Western Siderelists and Vedic Astrologers are "rightly situated" in alignment with the real, original, physical zodiac. I think the fact that back when Greek astrology was rolling, the zodiac of the Tropical calculation DID align with the real physical zodiac more, and the fact that India has always used the Sidereal zodiac, is enough proof for anyone that the real zodiac is the one to which we should be paying attention. Then there's the most obvious point of all, that if you say "Aries", you should mean "Aries", and not 23 degrees Aries to 23 Degrees Taurus, which is the now Tropical Aries. But everything you said, in spirit, which is how it sounded, spiritual and intellectual, yes, those things found around also the Western Astrological pursuit are helpful. I think the hitting gets more correct when the charts are seen Sidereally, and moreso if read Vedicly, which sadly is not a way yet known to many, though it's growing rapidly. I certainly don't want to belittle at all, the progressive and spiritual intentions and accomplishments of anyone who has had such positive experiences because of associating with any Astrological system. I am for such growth, and a member of that team. I simply have found, and I've had the pleasure of heavy contact with Vedic, that Vedic really matches life as it really is. On the contrary, my contact with Western Astrologers, their readings and words about my chart, were more vague in general, and more inbued with the filler of somewhat standard psychology type speaking, standard "how life is" type phrases, which are a grab bag one kindof acquires over time through contact with other persons thinking this way. It's not REALLY astrology as much as Vedic is. It's more "other stuff". All these facts, scientific and my own personal experiences, lead to me the same conclusion, that one is more "real" and the other more "a culture". Therefore, in the interests of re-presenting Astrology to the modern world, which is highly scientific in approach, we are acting in the best interests of the mission to learn and present that astrology which is more hard hitting, verifiable, scientific, and mundanely correct. This last one requies that the signs be right. To talk a human, you don't need to be so exacting, because just a few openers and you can have a good session. A few openers can be provided in Western Astrology by the fact that they have many of the planets in the correct houses. I have Jupiter in the 9th in both systems, so some connection to religion is a given. I have Venus in the first in both. So some connection to Venus personally is a given, and no matter how one sees and words that back to me, I'm going to say "Yeah, right on, because it's ALL been true for me to some degree. So Western Astrology, when the chart is read, does get SOME hits. Definitely. Mainly because of the planets and houses, and the fact that oddly enough, Westerns still use the traditional (read: correct) significations for the signs and planets. For example, they say Venus is love, beauty, pleasure, and so do we, and they say the first house is the overall self, and so do we, so you get some hits there, and same with Jupiter being a teacher, and the ninth house being religion, so there they get something right still, because it's only the Zodiac that's wrong. They see my Jupiter in Capricorn, but sidereally it's in Sagittarius. The way I understand these significations, it DOES make sense to see Sag. for my Jupiter stuff, and NOT Capricorn. For example, I was a leader in the Hare Krishna movement, which was not and is not a "practical" movement at all. I have always been FIERY in my pursuit and presentation of religion. My father was a naval officer and was in intense free fire battle zones, a signification of the arrow of Dhanus, known Vedicly to be connected with battle, to wit, Richard Nixon, who led the largest bombing campaign in World History, has many planets sidereally in Sagittarius. I have high goals religiously, nothing pragmatic here. Capricorn does NOT fit and Sagittarius does, big time. Capricorn represents a strong low lyeing creature, and Sagittarius is a transformationally inducing, highly arrogant, highly Pitta fire sign. That's much more descriptive of my approach to and experience with Guru, God and Religion. Also, Venus in Taurus in the first in Western, verse Venus in Aries in the first Sidereally, is also clear to me. My experiences with woman, and relationships, and the arts, have been all but peaceful. They have been fire-filled all along. I won't go further into the details of this one, but I do wish to say that this is so clear to me, that it's ARIES and not TAURUS which is directing my Venus. So clear. Also, I so much more fit Moon in Aquarius than Pisces. That's another very clear thing to me. I know many people who have Sidereal Pisces Moons, and they are all pretty clearly having that very wishy washy vague Pisces mood in life...very accepting of everything, which fits the "nothing left to achieve" finality of Pisces and the mood of water. I on the other hand think, act and feel very much the struggle of lifting water in a pot full of holes, and the burden of this transformational duty, trying to raise that which has a tendency to flow downward. Thus, the Aquarian feels one with the struggling masses, hence the brotherhood aspect. I am subject to the usual Aquarian darknesses caused by the Saturnian lordship. The Pisces Moon people I know, do NOT SEEM ARIAN at all. They would have Aries Western Moons. There's no way to mistake this one. The people with Sideral Aries Moons are fast, quick, love simple jokes, like to poke others and be rough in a jestful way. The one's who then have Sidereal Taurus Moons are more slothful, slower to get going, more attached to routine, and so on. It's so VERY CLEAR when you use Sidereal positions. If a Western Astrology avoids all use of Signs, they will find their hit rathe increasing. As soon as they use signs, it's going to be a struggle for the client to hear truth in the words. It will be a "reach" for both parties, and this is where it falls apart in those sessions. Sticking to planets and houses, there is more correctness as this often correct, even though they use only the unequal house systems primarily such as Placidus. Thanks, Das Goravani 2852 Willamette St # 353 Eugene OR USA 97405 or Fax: 541-343-0344 "Goravani Jyotish" Vedic/Hindu Astrology Software Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2000 Report Share Posted June 25, 2000 In a message dated 06/25/2000 3:00:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes: << Also, I so much more fit Moon in Aquarius than Pisces. That's another very clear thing to me. I know many people who have Sidereal Pisces Moons, and they are all pretty clearly having that very wishy washy vague Pisces mood in life...very accepting of everything, which fits the "nothing left to achieve" finality of Pisces and the mood of water. >> I've been trying to do some of this, myself. Sagittarius is lagna in both systems, although I have to adjust my birthtime to make it come out right in a Western chart, by about a minute and half, to get out of Capricorn zero degrees. I never understood that one, but I accepted the fact that Saturn was the ruler of my chart; I have severely low energy most of the time, and when it's high it's not dependable at all. Pushing my ascendant back into Sagittarius in my western chart showed a severely afflicted Jupiter, in the fifth house in Taurus, retrograde, and squared by Saturn, as chart ruler. Also, tropically, I have a scorpio moon -- this was what I thought was responsible for my rotten personality. And, tropically, I have neptune conjunct moon in scorpio, which was what I thought accounted for the rest of my rotten personality. In a Vedic chart, my moon is Libra -- a Sag Lagna/ Libra moon person with Sun in Virgo is simply not the same as a Libra sun, Sag ascendent, Scorpio moon person. My problem is the first one doesn't seem to fit me, although in the rest of the Vedic chart there are some undeniable, completely uncanny hits. I had to think about this a long time, because I had to either simply not have a rotten personality anymore, or try to figure out another way my personality was rotten according to the Vedic system. Finally, I decided it had to be Ketu in the first house in Sag Lagna that made me this way. I took a lot of reasoning to get to this though, which makes me hesitate in agreeing that either way is right or wrong. Love, Vox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2000 Report Share Posted June 25, 2000 To wit, someone named "skinbags" and he writes intensely on principal, and has a ton of fire in the chart. Skinbags is a drastic portrayal of the body, which is an object that others on the spiritual path hold in a much more patronizing and opulant way- it's very akin to the Hare Krishna mood to call the body "a skinbag made out of blood, puss, urine and stool". This quote I heard MANY times. So see when fire is strong, these heavy, intense and poignant moods come out, because fire people need clear flesh-related, blunt, facts on which to move and stand, otherwise they can really sin like crazy. Unless they are held in check by intense things they can see, they can pounce forward like wild tigers in life. It's not good talking subtle to them, and they don't do it naturally either. They like strength and challenge. They eat the weak. But there are other types of creatures, who are by nature more subtle, and prefer a very different tone, and are not happy with the strong fire mood. I suffer a mix personally, with a strong fire trine rising and a lunar air trine supported by Earth placements in it's 4th. So these two complexes battle with each other in me. To wit. das goravani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 Chris I believe James Braha is a fan of western aspects which I also find to work very reliablely including the outer planets.While the western understanding of the nodes is very different,I find that this also works,see especially Astrology for the Soul by Jan Spiller.Dave Birr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 26, 2000 Report Share Posted June 26, 2000 Dear Das, Vox and Everyone: I can't help but think that much of this discussion is moot given the lack of any clear evidence for or against the superiority of the sidereal zodiac. As as former western astrologer who has also "converted" to the sidereal zodiac and much of jyotish, I think the emphasis on signs by EITHER camp is somewhat misguided. The sidereal zodiac is better because of rulerships and house placements. Since these are determined by the Ascendant and TOB, it stands to reason that these more personalized markers will be more descriptive of a native's life than simple sign placement. Reading people's personalities from lagna and Moon sign is just so simplistic and general, I honestly don't think there's a falsifiable proposition there that could be tested. In the tropical zodiac, I was Aquarius rising, and sidereally this moves to Capricorn. Really, both are correct in some measure (I'm independent and cerebral but grumpy and practical too)but that really begs the question: if both can be right, then neither has any explanatory power. To me, the truth value of jyotish and the sidereal zodiac comes house placements: e.g. from where the Asc. ruler is located (mine's in the 12th -- definitely on to something there!) and what aspects other planets are making on Saturn. I just don't think the debate between zodiacs can be properly conducted through signs alone. This underscores the larger problem of appropriate levels of proof. Western astrology doesn't work largely because its based on a pseudoscience: psychology. Psychology, in both of its warm and fuzzy and hard core Freudian sides, contained little or no scientifically provable postulates. Pschoanalysis is a theory only, and can never be conclusively proven using empirical data. Humanist psychology fares little better on that score. Slowly, we here in the West are waking up to the bogusness of therapeutic culture. Too often, people who go to shrinks or counsellors, never experience a cure or even relief. They become chronic users of a system that encourages dependence on the therapist and their own self indulgence. Then, they might get put onto drugs, which only "work" in a minority of cases. Such is the fate of a society that discarded religion en masse only to replace it with shopping. There are fewer and fewer places for people to go to find answers to questions about life and existence. Western astrology fills the heads of clients with untestable propositions about themselves and their potentials. I remember reading this book shortly before "discovering" jyotish called Recent Advances in Natal Astrology, by Geoffrey Dean. I think it was published in 1977. It's probably out of print now, but basically it contained a systematic review of all known scientific testing of western astrology. Let me tell you, this is a sobering book for any western astrologer. Aside from the Gauquelin study, which isn't really western astrology per se, there was nothing in the hundreds of tests and studies on astrology that stood up to scrunity. All the sign-based stuff on profession (Pisceans are more likely to be poets, etc)personality traits (Aries are outgoing) found no statistical correlation. The book was interesting as Dean was a former astrologer himself (like one of the people on this Fox TV show) but gave it up when he had seen the light. Too bad he didn't check out jyotish. One thing that puzzles me is how a respected jyotish astrologer like James Braha can still praise the western system for its psychological insights while using jyotish for life events and outcomes. Any thoughts on this? Chris r At 07:53 PM 6/25/00 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 06/25/2000 3:00:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > writes: > ><< > Also, I so much more fit Moon in Aquarius than Pisces. That's another > very clear thing to me. I know many people who have Sidereal Pisces > Moons, and they are all pretty clearly having that very wishy washy > vague Pisces mood in life...very accepting of everything, which fits the > "nothing left to achieve" finality of Pisces and the mood of water. >> > > >I've been trying to do some of this, myself. Sagittarius is lagna in both >systems, although I have to adjust my birthtime to make it come out right in >a Western chart, by about a minute and half, to get out of Capricorn zero >degrees. I never understood that one, but I accepted the fact that Saturn was >the ruler of my chart; I have severely low energy most of the time, and when >it's high it's not dependable at all. > >Pushing my ascendant back into Sagittarius in my western chart showed a >severely afflicted Jupiter, in the fifth house in Taurus, retrograde, and >squared by Saturn, as chart ruler. Also, tropically, I have a scorpio moon >-- this was what I thought was responsible for my rotten personality. And, >tropically, I have neptune conjunct moon in scorpio, which was what I thought >accounted for the rest of my rotten personality. > >In a Vedic chart, my moon is Libra -- a Sag Lagna/ Libra moon person with Sun >in Virgo is simply not the same as a Libra sun, Sag ascendent, Scorpio moon >person. My problem is the first one doesn't seem to fit me, although in the >rest of the Vedic chart there are some undeniable, completely uncanny hits. I >had to think about this a long time, because I had to either simply not have >a rotten personality anymore, or try to figure out another way my personality >was rotten according to the Vedic system. > >Finally, I decided it had to be Ketu in the first house in Sag Lagna that >made me this way. I took a lot of reasoning to get to this though, which >makes me hesitate in agreeing that either way is right or wrong. > >Love, > >Vox > >------ >Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! >1. Fill in the brief application >2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds >3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR >http://click./1/5197/1/_/913692/_/961977227/ >------ > > >gjlist- > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2000 Report Share Posted June 28, 2000 Dave: Yes, I know Braha uses western aspects and the outers (as do I) but I was wondering about sign placement specfically. I mean, would he treat someone with Aries rising sidereally as a Taurus rising from a psychological point of view? Chris At 06:26 PM 6/26/00 EDT, you wrote: >Chris I believe James Braha is a fan of western aspects which I also find to >work very reliablely including the outer planets.While the western >understanding of the nodes is very different,I find that this also works,see >especially Astrology for the Soul by Jan Spiller.Dave Birr > >------ >Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers. >http://click./1/4633/1/_/913692/_/962058390/ >------ > > >gjlist- > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.