Astrologer Cornered by Perception ofPluto

[Guest guest]

Gary, I remember reading those words of Bradley not so long ago!!

 

Therese

 

At 10:59 PM 12/26/04 -0600, Gary wrote:

e:

>In his book SOLAR AND LUNAR RETURNS Donald Bradley makes a point about

>the trickiness of interpreting transits. On page 16, under the heading

> " An Astrological Pitfall " , he writes, " There are ten transiting planets

>and ten radical planets. There are five 'Ptolemaic' or major aspects

>which transiting bodies can make with radix planets...It

>may astonish the newer student to learn that the odds are even that at

>any given moment a transiting planet is within 0*27' of a conjunction,

>square or opposition, of a natal planet - a fact which gives the lie to

>many current astrological (mal)practices. "

[Guest guest]

Hello,

 

I'm taking advantage of this opportunity because it is the only time I will

ever get to correct the venerable Donald Bradley :: There were only four

Ptolemaic aspects. The conjunction was not counted as such. A whisper

of this survives to this day...in Hindu astrology, which is really a whisper

 

of the Indians copying the Greeks. These are really the five Medieval

aspects and you'll find them as such listed in Solar Fire. I take every

opportunity to avoid the word Vedic. Who invented this word? In fact

among the 19th century American Transcendentalists we find the word

Hindoo. Probably Whitman too.

 

Actually if it wasn't for a transiting planet within 0*27' of a conjunction,

 

square or opposition of a natal planet we wouldn't have the glue to

cobble together a reading.

 

Dark*Star

________________________________

 

> >In his book SOLAR AND LUNAR RETURNS Donald Bradley makes a point about

> >the trickiness of interpreting transits. On page 16, under the heading

> > " An Astrological Pitfall " , he writes, " There are ten transiting planets

> >and ten radical planets. There are five 'Ptolemaic' or major aspects

> >which transiting bodies can make with radix planets...It

> >may astonish the newer student to learn that the odds are even that at

> >any given moment a transiting planet is within 0*27' of a conjunction,

> >square or opposition, of a natal planet - a fact which gives the lie to

> >many current astrological (mal)practices. "

>

[Guest guest]

I take every

opportunity to avoid the word Vedic. Who invented this word?

 

[cynthianovak]

David Frawley coined the term....at least that is what I was told.

 

BTW, phone call, Pluto transits still tight. Going to a funeral on Wed.

Long-time family friend of my sweetie. Pluto to my natal mars, we would

usually take my car, but will rent one that's a little newer with fewer

miles. I keep meaning to have all the belts and hoses changed out just in

case. This transit certainly has me more aware of any little sounds and the

tires.

 

c

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dark Star wrote:

 

> I take every

> opportunity to avoid the word Vedic. Who invented this word? In fact

> among the 19th century American Transcendentalists we find the word

> Hindoo. Probably Whitman too.

>

>

 

DS*

 

Chakrapani Ullal told me he originated the word--but I don't have a time

frame on this. It could have been around the time of the forming of ACVA

board members.

I will get further clarity on this....

Kenny Richards (aka Kenny Rich) told me before this that he was the one

that coined the word. Kenny along with Kesava (Kerry Lawrence)

introduced 'Vedic' astrology to Brazil in the late '70's or early '80's.

Kesava later became the astrologer to the president of Brazil. He still

lives there and is translating astrology and other metaphysical type

books from Portuguese to English and vice versa.

 

 

Steve

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

to anyone concerned; Most certainly I also avoid the words " Vedic " Astrology...,

Yuk! There is little but scant Astro-Omenology and celestial symbolical revery

in what we know of as the Vedas.

Lux, R

 

cynthianovak <cynthianovak wrote:

 

I take every

opportunity to avoid the word Vedic. Who invented this word?

 

[cynthianovak]

David Frawley coined the term....at least that is what I was told.

 

BTW, phone call, Pluto transits still tight. Going to a funeral on Wed.

Long-time family friend of my sweetie. Pluto to my natal mars, we would

usually take my car, but will rent one that's a little newer with fewer

miles. I keep meaning to have all the belts and hoses changed out just in

case. This transit certainly has me more aware of any little sounds and the

tires.

 

c

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

DS, Steve, and List,

 

Whatever Bradley's oversights, I am impressed by the spirit of his

criticism. It is true that close aspects occur all the time without much

in the way of manfestations. This is what confuses many inexperienced

astrologers -- they mistakenly assume that if there is a tight aspect

between two planets, that they can launch into some brilliant prediction

or reading that will occur. As we all know from painful experience, this

is not the way astrology works. Simultaneous transits have to occur for

anything significant to fructify. Just how many simultaneous transits

are required for some significant event to occur is really a matter of

speculation and discussion.

 

I'm no fan of the term " Vedic " either, but I use it, and it doesn't bother

me much any more. One person cannot stand up to the tides of language.

 

Chris

 

 

 

--- Dark Star <pansophia wrote:

 

>

> Hello,

>

> I'm taking advantage of this opportunity because it is the only time I

> will

> ever get to correct the venerable Donald Bradley :: There were only four

> Ptolemaic aspects. The conjunction was not counted as such. A whisper

> of this survives to this day...in Hindu astrology, which is really a

> whisper

>

> of the Indians copying the Greeks. These are really the five Medieval

> aspects and you'll find them as such listed in Solar Fire. I take every

> opportunity to avoid the word Vedic. Who invented this word? In fact

> among the 19th century American Transcendentalists we find the word

> Hindoo. Probably Whitman too.

>

> Actually if it wasn't for a transiting planet within 0*27' of a

> conjunction,

>

> square or opposition of a natal planet we wouldn't have the glue to

> cobble together a reading.

>

> Dark*Star

> ________________________________

>

> > >In his book SOLAR AND LUNAR RETURNS Donald Bradley makes a point

> about

> > >the trickiness of interpreting transits. On page 16, under the

> heading

> > > " An Astrological Pitfall " , he writes, " There are ten transiting

> planets

> > >and ten radical planets. There are five 'Ptolemaic' or major aspects

> > >which transiting bodies can make with radix planets...It

> > >may astonish the newer student to learn that the odds are even that

> at

> > >any given moment a transiting planet is within 0*27' of a

> conjunction,

> > >square or opposition, of a natal planet - a fact which gives the lie

> to

> > >many current astrological (mal)practices. "

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.

http://info.mail./mail_250

[Guest guest]

At 09:16 PM 12/27/04 -0800, Chris wrote:

>

>I'm no fan of the term " Vedic " either, but I use it, and it doesn't bother

>me much any more. One person cannot stand up to the tides of language.

 

Or the evolution of language...In the public mind 'Vedic' is probably

thought of as referring to India in general.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Christopher Kevill wrote:

 

> One person cannot stand up to the tides

 

> *** I'll bet it's 50,000 + who couldn't.

[Guest guest]

--- Dark Star <pansophia wrote:

 

>

>

>

> Christopher Kevill wrote:

>

> > One person cannot stand up to the tides

>

> > *** I'll bet it's 50,000 + who couldn't.

 

how much? if this is an over/under, whose figures are we going to trust?

There is widespread underreporting here in Thailand. And Burma just makes

figures up out of thin air.

 

 

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

The all-new My - Get yours free!