Guest guest Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 At 12:34 AM 3/13/06 -0800, Dark*Star wrote: >But isn't astrology essentially an Uranian Ray? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Only the computer part of astrology. The rest of today's Tropical astrology is Neptunian. That's the only planet Marcello Borges found statistically meaningful in the charts of astrologers. However, a particular irony has just hit me (having slowed mental processes due to age!). We have Steve, for example, on the side of less structure for astrologers, yet, reading his bio, he is a member and teacher of the most elitist astrology organization around: ACVA, The American Council of Vedic Astrologers. I was one of the founding memebers of that organization and dropped out very early due to the kind of complaints that Steve describes. Powerful male egos were controlling from the onset, and there were strict standards of education and practice. (Two of my complaints involved male egos and the requirement of using many Sanskrit terms.) But you know what? Whereas the Fagan-Bradley school of astrology never got off the ground with western astrologers, Jyotish/Vedic has made quite an impression due almost solely to the efforts of ACVA. This proves, if nothing else, that organization doesn't hurt astrology. Sure, ACVA has standardized classes, and I've heard numerous complaints about the snobbery and elitist attitudes of teachers (probably not you, Steve), but an understanding of the sidereal zodiac and Jyotish techniques have made their way into mainstream tropical astrology. That is progress! Yes, organniations have their drawbacks, but comparing what ACVA has accomlished to the faltering teachings of Fagan-Bradley, we see why standards and organization DO matter. Go to any forum where posters use Jyotish, and you will see mutual understanding and agreement on technique and interpretation. If there is disagreement, the posters will cite their reasons, and everyone understands the comments. Also the problems Alphee described occur mainly in the Tropical camp. This is because to even experiment with the sidereal zodiac means that the astrologer has thought deeply about astrology and what is wrong with it. Also sidereal astrology is based much more on mathematical principles than psychological tropical astrology. So Jyotish practitioners won't be aware of the huge problem area that exits in the tropical camp. I still don't think it would hurt if every practicing atrologer had at least two years of education at a Community College. These colleges always have classes for elders along with a full schedule of classes in the usual basics. I'd make this a minimum requirement to hang out that atrological shingle. And if you want to be a teacher-- then add some classes on how to be an educator. This is the only way we're going to raise the standards for astrology. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Steve, Therese, and all, Why standards are good -- the criminal justice system. For all its foibles, its probably better than total lawlessness. Why standards are bad -- the AMA and the longstanding persecution of " alternative " practitioners. Some standards are more necessary than others. Chris Steven Stuckey <shastra wrote: There's apparently a problem with , I am not getting some of the recent E-mails, so in this instance I have gone to the site and copied this post to my regular E-mail software. Therese wrote: However, a particular irony has just hit me (having slowed mental processes due to age!). We have Steve, for example, on the side of less structure for astrologers, yet, reading his bio, he is a member and teacher of the most elitist astrology organization around: ACVA, The American Council of Vedic Astrologers. Therese and members, " Elitist " is your word Therese,and reflects 'your' experience with ACVA, not mine--so let's be clear on that. For the most part I have found all the members of ACVA to be quite accommodating. I was more or less a 'grandfathered' member, and probably could have been a founding member also, but expressed no interest as such. I have given talks at a couple of conferences, have previously given classes in Los Angeles and taught private students looking for ACVA certification. I was a teacher whose time in classes and with students went towards ACVA certification-- that is until recently, when I noticed my name has been removed from the teachers list. Probably because I've had no contact with the organization in several years and never went through the certification process myself. So my status currently--a member in good standing but not a teacher. I always had the freedom to do what I wanted, and because a number of the ACVA people knew I had my own set of high standards and background in Jyotish( most notably Chakrapani Ullal) that were not in conflict with the organization, I was given certification rights if you will. My problem has nothing to do with the organization per se or anyone in it--I need complete freedom in astrology to grow in the right way. If I have to start making considerations when I give a talk, to make sure that it is in keeping with certain organizational principles, so as not to reflect badly on such organization ete etc etc I will go crazy and astrology will cease to be a delight. I was one of the founding members of that organization and dropped out very early due to the kind of complaints that Steve describes. Powerful male egos were controlling from the onset, and there were strict standards of education and practice. (Two of my complaints involved male egos and the requirement of using many Sanskrit terms.) " Powerful male egos " again your words and not mine--please don't put words in my mouth and make assumptions on my behalf. Since I was not part of the founding process and had absolutely no interest in it, I couldn't really say what went on behind closed doors at the board meetings. Other women were included as founding members and didn't appear to butt heads with " powerful male egos " --at least not in a way that required them to remove themselves from the organization. But you know what? Whereas the Fagan-Bradley school of astrology never got off the ground with western astrologers, Jyotish/Vedic has made quite an impression due almost solely to the efforts of ACVA. ACVA of course had the entire continent of India behind it and a body of classical literature going back centuries. It was an idea waiting to happen and only needed the connection to Indian astrologers to blossom. Chakrapani Ullal, KN Rao, BV Raman and others were highly instrumental in this happening. ACVA would have not had its initial success without this nod from India and of course plenty of Saturn personalities (on both sides of the globe) with a strong desire to do business, organize and structure. Several of the original and still current founding members of ACVA, attended their first sidereal classes at the Los Angeles School of Sidereal Astrology (Fagan/Bradley), where I was privileged to teach for over 20 years. We offered a very non-structured environment, sponsored Fagan teachers and also promoted the very beginnings of Vedic astrology in the west by offering a platform for all to speak and give classes (without requiring testing or pre-certification). One of these students, and a friend of mine, was Bill Levacy-- now a very popular published author and the main man behind designing the testing and certification procedures for ACVA. The school may never have " gotten off the ground " , in the context of the world at large, but it produced some of finest astrologers I've ever seen. No one ever had a problem with the " powerful male egos " in charge, simply because there were none. We all did our favorite pet projects, without an oversight committee, and then we were allowed to present the results to the class. This environment provided a platform for everyone to 'find himself' and his place in astrology--without having to get the nod of approval from the 'authorities'. In Bill's case, his very powerful natal Saturn moved him inexorably towards his destiny, despite the 'lax' structure of the classes. This proves, if nothing else, that organization doesn't hurt astrology. Sure, ACVA has standardized classes, and I've heard numerous complaints about the snobbery and elitist attitudes of teachers (probably not you, Steve), but an understanding of the sidereal zodiac and Jyotish techniques have made their way into mainstream tropical astrology. That is progress! " Probably not " me Therese? Thanks for the vote of confidence--but how would you know exactly? Yes, organizations have their drawbacks, but comparing what ACVA has accomplished to the faltering teachings of Fagan-Bradley, we see why standards and organization DO matter. Go to any forum where posters use Jyotish, and you will see mutual understanding and agreement on technique and interpretation. If there is disagreement, the posters will cite their reasons, and everyone understands the comments. You are on the one hand touting ACVA's accomplishments, a proselytizer for the end product of mutual understanding and agreement and yet blasting the male egos that run the organization. There are many women currently on board with ACVA, several of whom were founding members from its very inception, who have made the adjustment to mutual cooperation and have obviously come to some form of understanding with the persons that run the organization--I would assume so because their wish to promote the knowledge was greater than their issues with a male dominated structure. Organization implies this sort of thing doesn't it? Not everyone can be in charge. You can't have too many gurus occupying the same ashram. All Chiefs and no Indians never works. One obvious solution of course--found your own ashram and be your own Indian Chief. I've openly admitted I have a problem with this, not in regular business of course, where I have dealt with and compromised with many an asshole boss. Of course that is standard operating procedure within a corporation--the biggest egos always rise to the top and you either play ball their way or you truck your butt down the highway. If you want to pay your bills, you cooperate. Standards do matter, no question there Of course standards matter---but who are the enforcers of these standards going to be? The ultimate enforcer is the individual himself and if it needs to be a group, then hopefully it will be one with at least enough maturity and humility to get along with each other for more than 5 minutes. Want an example of the worst kind relating to a focus on standards and minutia and its inevitable fallout? We don't have to go any further than a few days ago on this very list when someone began a 'rant' on the use of the apostrophe. From there we have moved the discussion to the importance of standards, the failure of the Fagan school, the rude and uneducated contingent of astrologers on ADB and elsewhere, Uranian rednecks, the major ego's of ACVA who despite themselves have managed to put together one of the best astrological organizations around etc etc etc etc. Do you remember the original post that started it all? In your myopic preoccupation with proper grammar and the entire agenda you had waiting in the wings behind this (my guess this was almost entirely a reaction to the fallout over at ADB) ,you admittedly neglected to note the author of the post (me in this case) before replying and because of this I wouldn't want to bet that you in fact even read the content of the post itself or even knew the original author to whom I was replying. That would have been Joanna, a new comer to the list, who posed her very first question as far as I know. A very interesting question regarding the difference between the effects of the regular Sun/Moon when in conjunction and opposition and the effects of these two planets when involved in an eclipse. So to Joanna and others on the list I apologize for my part in this detour away from actual astrology.... Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 At 07:20 AM 3/14/06 -0800, Chris wrote: > >Why standards are good -- the criminal justice system. For all its foibles, its probably better than total lawlessness. > >Why standards are bad -- the AMA and the longstanding persecution of " alternative " practitioners. > >Some standards are more necessary than others. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris, ....walking the fine line... P.S. Very clever and diplomatic approach you've taken on the NCGR list asking Alphee about ayanamsas. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Hi Therese, Yes, I like to walk the line. " Diplomacy " is just another way of saying I'm not really sure. At bottom, we're all self interested and our opinions on how much standardization is necessary reflects our own bias. The Uranians want freedom because that's who they are and the Saturnians want structure because that's who they are. All other justifications are rationalizations. Thank you, Nietzsche. Actually, I can't take credit for fishing around to get Alphee to come clean about his possible siderealphobia. Steve suggested it after I told him that Alphee had come on to the ncgr list touting his rectification software. It will be interesting to see if he bites... Chris therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: At 07:20 AM 3/14/06 -0800, Chris wrote: > >Why standards are good -- the criminal justice system. For all its foibles, its probably better than total lawlessness. > >Why standards are bad -- the AMA and the longstanding persecution of " alternative " practitioners. > >Some standards are more necessary than others. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris, ...walking the fine line... P.S. Very clever and diplomatic approach you've taken on the NCGR list asking Alphee about ayanamsas. Therese " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 Alphee says in his classes that he doesn't use sidereal because it doesn't work. Same for Chiron and asteroids. He only uses the five aspects. He likes to keep it simple. Charming off kilter, he is a master of diversion tactics. ________________________________ Christopher Kevill wrote: > Hi Therese, > > Actually, I can't take credit for fishing around to get Alphee to come clean about his possible siderealphobia. Steve suggested it after I told him that Alphee had come on to the ncgr list touting his rectification software. It will be interesting to see if he bites... > > Chris > > therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: At 07:20 AM 3/14/06 -0800, Chris wrote: > > > >Why standards are good -- the criminal justice system. For all its > foibles, its probably better than total lawlessness. > > > >Why standards are bad -- the AMA and the longstanding persecution of > " alternative " practitioners. > > > >Some standards are more necessary than others. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Chris, > > ...walking the fine line... > > P.S. Very clever and diplomatic approach you've taken on the NCGR list > asking Alphee about ayanamsas. > > Therese > > > > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > > > 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.