Jain's Preference/Introduction

[Guest guest]

According to Jain, the degree meanings in his book relate to the fixed stars:

 

" I have collected and correlated bits of information from here and there on

the FIXED STARS (caps Jain's), tested the results for over 20 years. The

degrees which the planets, Sun, Moon, Ascendant and Mid-heaven occupy

supply amizingly correct information. " (p. xii)

 

It's fairly obvious that Jain copied much of the material in his preface

and introduction from various sources. Here he contradicts himself:

 

IN THE PREFACE:

 

" The degrees overlap in their influences and some patience is required to

understand and interpret them. " (p. xiii)

 

IN THE INTRODUCTION:

 

" First degree runs from 0 deg 00 00 and the second degree from 1 deg 00 01

to 2 00 00 and so on, the dividing line between each being infinitely keen.

It could not be otherwise, for degrees [are] spaces and not points. " (p. xv)

 

(The language of this entire paragraph is very un-Indian. Most of the

paragraph is an obvious copy of someone else's rhetoric.)

 

The main principle in Jain's book is that he says his degrees correlate

with the fixed stars, but of course he never names any of these stars since

his book is a copy of what must have been a Tropical text. (authored by

Isidore Kozminsky)

 

Nevertheless, Richard Houck claims the degrees are sidereal, and I've often

found them working fairly well myself. On the other hand it's possible to

open Kozminsky's book to any page and probably half the degrees on the page

might refer to myself or some other person. This is probably true of most

degree books unless they're simply incomphrehensible. Marc Edmund Jones and

Dane Rudhyar are two of my incomprehensibles.

 

But since 17 Virgo is an astrologer sitting at his desk and that's where my

Rahu in the 10th house is, sometimes the degrees seem uncannily correct.

But sometimes the degrees are pretty far off. Is it simply chance if a

degree symbol fits. Could be!

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> Nevertheless, Richard Houck claims the degrees are sidereal, and

I've often

> found them working fairly well myself. On the other hand it's

possible to

> open Kozminsky's book to any page and probably half the degrees on

the page

> might refer to myself or some other person. This is probably true of

most

> degree books unless they're simply incomphrehensible. Marc Edmund

Jones and

> Dane Rudhyar are two of my incomprehensibles.

 

I concur. But this opinion is anathema in humanistic astrology circles

where the Sabian symbols seem to be elevated to the status of a divine

oracle! I have never found them to be nearly so profound as supporters

claim. I tend to use Charubel but John Ballantrae recommends Kozminsky

also Axel Harvey recommends the work of EC Matthews (who was a famous

painter as well as an astrologer with an interest in the fixed stars).

Is anyone on this list familiar with the Matthews degree symbols?

 

Andrew