The sun...a star...so what

[smilingsteph]

Okay so I am not sure this will gain any attention or whatever...
I always play the devils advocate with everything...two sides to every story type of a person...but a lovely person who is against anything somewhat mystical or religious said that astrology is BS, the sun is just a star, why so much emphasis
Why then is the sun so powerful in astrology when it is a dwarf star?
According to many cultures and religions the sun is really considered life for many....
The sun brings life to our planet....no sun, no life...
What are your takes?

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Our sun is no dwarf star, granted it's nothing spectacular as far as stars go, as our sun is about average in size and heat produced. To call the sun "just another star" is really a slap in the face. It may be "just another star" to astronomers, but to the Earth...it's everything. Everything is traced back to the sun and the energy it gives to us.

"Just another star" my foot. The very fact that the sun's rising covers up the light of all other stars should be blatant proof enough that the sun is something more than that...

[smilingsteph]

I knew you would be the first to post on this topic! I love it....I totally gave it to the person that I got into the debate with, hardly worth debating really...

[Nexus7]

Actually, sun-sign astrology has only been around for about 50 years, it was not given so much importance in other schools of astrology. It probably started with Alan Leo and the theosophists.

I don't care for sun-sign astrology myself - long story. But it is here that it might be possible to see just how it is that some interpretaions of the Gnostics saw the Sun as the bigest archon of all: the ego complex that blinds out awareness of any other ideas, the one local star insisting 'there is no other god but me!' when there is a universe of stars around us. Atomised egos, who see nothing but this magnificent ego.

Ean Begg came out with this one, by the way. It is also an idea that is touched upon in Science and Astrology: Drawing down the Moon and Hillman too alludes to the idea that the quest for Self may have some rather atomising, effects, isolating us form nature and so on.

I did think a lot of astrologers I met seemed to get a bit evangelical on the the importance of sun signs.

My two cents of devil's advocacy or whatever.

[EJ53]

It's the centre of our universe - QED!

(Dane Rudhyar did write a book titled "The Sun is Also a Star" - but he was arguing the case for making it more important rather than less.)

[Nexus7]

Dane Rudhyar is - Dane Rudhyar. I never got on with him. He is, of course, steeped in Alice Bailey and Theosophy and I never got on with them either. I prefer the perspectives of Hillman, Begg, the co-authors of Drawing down the Moon - and for that mater, Monica Sjöö, who is an outspoken critic of Bailey and Blavatsky. I know that most astrologers would not see eye-to-eye to me on this one and I have no wish to argue the point now. It is, quite simply, where I part company with the astrologers.

[Sagmoon]

just wanted to share this http://youtube.com/watch?v=lwrAm8gF-s4&feature=related

watch it...you won't regret promise

i love the stars so much, i actually feel like i miss the other galaxies sometimes

S

ps what was the thread about?

[Sagmoon]

couldn't resist http://youtube.com/watch?v=BGxRWCmwSDE&feature=related

:59:

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Nexus, as an anti-Leo-and-all-that-jabber-ist (like that?) also, I'd be interested in reading into those authors you had mentioned, if you could PM me a list of some of the books you would recommend of them, that would be greatly appreciated.

[EJ53]

Originally Posted by Nexus7

Dane Rudhyar is - Dane Rudhyar. I never got on with him.

Nor I Nexus - like Liz Greene, he is another of those pioneering astrologers whose views seem to get accepted without sufficient questioning by the Establishment. How about copying that PM to Kai on to me as well?

Thanks.

EJ

[clavicelus]

the sun is the energy source that shaped the stellar dust in this region of space and fomed it into the various plantes that forms our particular solar system .

you may argue that there are many solar systems but untill now no solar system was found to have a plant quite like our earth .

you see we have in here a magical phenomna quite remarkbale
we have Water !
you may argue that are many places in the universe with water but there is no place like our earth were water reside in 3 stated of Gas , Liquid and Solid.

this wondrous coincidence allow the magick of life to happan .

[Caprising]

A few points that you might like to bring up in a discussion with the flat earthers The sun is a star that constantly bombards the earth with a wide variety of rays i.e. microwaves (we all know what they are!), u.v.rays, xrays etc. the earths "magnetosphere" protects us from some of the more deadly radiations, while our atmosphere also filters out a lot of the bad ****. (such scientific language lol) . The human body contains ray sensitive glands, more commonly known as "endocrine glands" which happen to be in the same spots as our "chakras". These various glands produce the chemicals which in turn influence how we think, look and act to a degree. As an example the pineal gland is sunlight sensitive, telling our mind/body when to sleep according to the amount of light recieved over any 24 hour period. As the pineal gland recieves more sun, it releases more chemicals which ussually make us feel more relaxed and spiritual (the pineal gland is ruled by neptune ) Each endocrine gland has it's own planetary influence according to some of the more published astrologers, e.g. mars rules the adrenal glands, so if you have a strong mars or a lot of planets in aries in your chart then you probably have a fast acting adrenaline system, and are quick to fight or flight (this is a generalization, other factors could nullify a strong mars like a conjunction with neptune for instance) . A few of the astrologers that have attempted to match the planets to the various glands are Alan Oken, and Julie and Derek Parker if anyone wants to go into this further, I'm sure that many others have also touched on this topic, but I don't recall their names right now.

[astro.teacher]

Why is it those who question Astrology cant pick up a few books on it and experiment themselves before they try to condemn the art? If you want to convince this person of Astrology, give them a few really good books that teach Astrology basics (I would highly recommend a traditional book or two because I find modern Astrology books have too many generalities in them which skeptics can dismiss as simply "applying to everyone"). If this person is genuinely interested in the answer you provide for your question, they would have asked for further material to research it themselves.

The only people who have the authority to claim Astrology is BS are Astrologers. I dont see too many Astrologers out there claiming its BS, only the people who couldnt tell me what the 1st House represents. No arguement in the world will convince a skeptic to believe something except for experience themselves in the field.

[waybread]

I believe Nexus is correct that traditional astrology didn't focus so heavily on the sun. Traditional meanings of the sun in a chart include one's father in a day birth, one's ruler, and one's husband or father in a woman's chart. I think the reason is that in bygone centuries, individuality was not so fully developed or accepted by society as it is today. Young men didn't worry about self-expression, but continued in their father's line of work. Most women expected to continue their mothers' traditional lifestyles. The masses of people were simply expected to be subservient and to do what the aristocrats and religious authorities told them to do.

In the West, this lack of significance for the individual slowly began to change with the Enlightenment. Intriguingly, Uranus, another planet of individuation, was discovered in 1783.

To the extent that people were seen to be individuals, the astrologer would look to their ascendants, notably to any stars/planets close to it.

Another point to consider is that astrology is based on the notion of a geocentric universe; but surely astrology was affected by Galileo and other astronomers who proved that the sun was the centre of the solar system, not the earth.

There is some debate as to whether the moon is more significant in women's charts, notably for night births. I think if someone has a moon in Cancer it can be so strong as to overshadow (though not eclipse) the expression of the sun in the chart.