Moving from Modern to Traditional Techniques?
- Thread starter byjove
- Start date
Moog
Well-known member
I don't have much time for asteroids and lilliths and black moons and things. But then I've been into astrology for a much shorter time, and I'm trying to get the basics in place. Houses, planets, signs.
I've read the astrologer you're talking about (should I really not name her?)
actually I found some of her work quite interesting and inspiring, and it nudged my astrological interest and direction into a new phase.
But then I discovered more trad stuff and it spoke to me, so I started down that route, and I'm finding it richly rewarding.
I'm currently in the process of reading a book that I guess would fall into the evolutionary astrology genre, and again, I think it has interesting things to say to me about astrology.
I've read the astrologer you're talking about (should I really not name her?)
actually I found some of her work quite interesting and inspiring, and it nudged my astrological interest and direction into a new phase.But then I discovered more trad stuff and it spoke to me, so I started down that route, and I'm finding it richly rewarding.
I'm currently in the process of reading a book that I guess would fall into the evolutionary astrology genre, and again, I think it has interesting things to say to me about astrology.
Well I certainly have incorporated many things from the Modernist school (especially from the earlier Modernists like Charles Carter) 
!
Among them:
-use of the "Earth Point" (point directly opposite to the Sun)
-simple symbolic progression
-use of the "Life Point"
-use of Lilith (which I have come to consider to be a "mini South Node")
-significant use of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in delineation (except horary where I really have found no use for them)-but rejection of any of the outers "ruling" a sign (but acceptance of them as co-domiciles of signs)
-acceptance of the Modernist emphasis upon close aspectual orbs (which is very different than what I consider to be too wide orbs/moiety in Traditionalist and Hellenstic applications)
-acceptance of the semi-sextile aspect
I could also add items I have incorporated from Vedic astrology and even a few things I use from Chinese astrology, plus of course, a great deal from Traditionalist (particularly the pre-Bonatti Islamic transitional-era) and a few gems from the Greco/Romans as well. Many will call this a hodge-podge mixmash, but I call it "eclecticism", and I love it
!!
!Among them:
-use of the "Earth Point" (point directly opposite to the Sun)
-simple symbolic progression
-use of the "Life Point"
-use of Lilith (which I have come to consider to be a "mini South Node")
-significant use of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in delineation (except horary where I really have found no use for them)-but rejection of any of the outers "ruling" a sign (but acceptance of them as co-domiciles of signs)
-acceptance of the Modernist emphasis upon close aspectual orbs (which is very different than what I consider to be too wide orbs/moiety in Traditionalist and Hellenstic applications)
-acceptance of the semi-sextile aspect
I could also add items I have incorporated from Vedic astrology and even a few things I use from Chinese astrology, plus of course, a great deal from Traditionalist (particularly the pre-Bonatti Islamic transitional-era) and a few gems from the Greco/Romans as well. Many will call this a hodge-podge mixmash, but I call it "eclecticism", and I love it
!!
MSO
Well-known member
I'm glad to see there's a growing interest in old techniques. This modern stuff is driving me crazy. If I see someone talk about Pluto being the higher evolution of Mars one more time....
It also pleases me that there is a growing interest in whole signs.
I will say, however, that there is room for development of new techniques, and there are certainly ancient techniques that do not work. I don't care about New Age garbage, Vedic and it's weird names for simple things, Chinese astrology which is just completely foreign to me, or ancient techniques that are absurd and out-of-date... All I want is what works, and for the most part, modern astrology just doesn't do it.
It also pleases me that there is a growing interest in whole signs.
I will say, however, that there is room for development of new techniques, and there are certainly ancient techniques that do not work. I don't care about New Age garbage, Vedic and it's weird names for simple things, Chinese astrology which is just completely foreign to me, or ancient techniques that are absurd and out-of-date... All I want is what works, and for the most part, modern astrology just doesn't do it.
waybread
Well-known member
I'd love to know the "academic" (or "academics") to whom Zoller refers. The good ones are people like Nicholas Campion! It's been pretty widely known that a leading psychological astrologer got a bogus Ph. D. from a since-defunct diploma mill in the US, yet used that credential for years. Interestingly, s/he recently got a real Ph. D. from a legitimate university in the UK. Not in psychology, but in the humanities.
Right now I am delving into the historical origins of western astrology. I don't think I want to practice it. I do find the detective part of historical research to be fascinating.
Speaking as a modern astrologer, sometimes I wondered how the average psychology professor would view psychological astrology. Probably not very favourably. Thankfully, there is so much more to modern astrology.
Astrology recent and ancient contains both good and bad material. I doubt that anyone could read the early work of Robert Hand and find it shallow, because he is usually very thoughtful. (Planets in Youth, Planets in Transit, Planets in Composite, &c.) Thankfully I found his books early-on in my astrological studies or I probably would have given it up as shallow. Note that there was hardly any traditional astrology in accessible places 20 years ago.)
But we know that some astrologers in antiquity were peddling their craft at circuses in the Roman world. How thoughtful could these guys have been? Read Vettius Valens on the descriptions of signs he didn't much care for, or on all of the silly ways one could die if the planets were in bad places. Just because a bunch of modern astrology is oh-fer-dumb, doesn't mean a lot of the sensationalist material in traditional astrology suddenly got credible.
I use the outer planets (notably Pluto) and Black Moon Lilith because I think they have real predictive value.
Traditional astrologers who do research would really benefit from a solid academic research background. I just see some of them making egregious mistakes of judgement that a trained historian wouldn't make. One example of this is in Holden's, A History of Horoscopic Astrology (2nd ed, 2006, pp. 21-22.) In critiquing ancient testimonies about the horoscope of the Romulus (the "founder" of Rome) as astronomically incorrect, , Holden apparently didn't realize that Romulus was a mythical (i.e. fictional) character! Additional examples of this nature are available upon request.
Regarding eclecticism, the modern astrology I practice is highly eclectic. Many of the principles and even techniques have come down through the centuries. There is more overlap than some people seem to realize.
Right now I am delving into the historical origins of western astrology. I don't think I want to practice it. I do find the detective part of historical research to be fascinating.
Speaking as a modern astrologer, sometimes I wondered how the average psychology professor would view psychological astrology. Probably not very favourably. Thankfully, there is so much more to modern astrology.
Astrology recent and ancient contains both good and bad material. I doubt that anyone could read the early work of Robert Hand and find it shallow, because he is usually very thoughtful. (Planets in Youth, Planets in Transit, Planets in Composite, &c.) Thankfully I found his books early-on in my astrological studies or I probably would have given it up as shallow. Note that there was hardly any traditional astrology in accessible places 20 years ago.)
But we know that some astrologers in antiquity were peddling their craft at circuses in the Roman world. How thoughtful could these guys have been? Read Vettius Valens on the descriptions of signs he didn't much care for, or on all of the silly ways one could die if the planets were in bad places. Just because a bunch of modern astrology is oh-fer-dumb, doesn't mean a lot of the sensationalist material in traditional astrology suddenly got credible.
I use the outer planets (notably Pluto) and Black Moon Lilith because I think they have real predictive value.
Traditional astrologers who do research would really benefit from a solid academic research background. I just see some of them making egregious mistakes of judgement that a trained historian wouldn't make. One example of this is in Holden's, A History of Horoscopic Astrology (2nd ed, 2006, pp. 21-22.) In critiquing ancient testimonies about the horoscope of the Romulus (the "founder" of Rome) as astronomically incorrect, , Holden apparently didn't realize that Romulus was a mythical (i.e. fictional) character! Additional examples of this nature are available upon request.
Regarding eclecticism, the modern astrology I practice is highly eclectic. Many of the principles and even techniques have come down through the centuries. There is more overlap than some people seem to realize.
waybread
Well-known member
Unfortunately I don't have audio on my ancient computer, but I will sneak over and use my husband's, sometime when he's not using it.
Possibly Zoller is critical of the classicists and philologists who did some of the early English translations of the major extant works on ancient astrology. There is a belief among some traditional astrologers today that these academic translators knew diddly-squat about astrology. Fair enough, but what they did know were differences between different time-periods and places in terms of how ancient Greek and Latin were written, which is likely to escape the average astrologer with a background in high school Latin or college Greek. The ancient language background is helpful in determining how a work is put together; which matters in compilations like some of our early astrological texts.
Also, as noted above, I don't think you'd find the historians literally attributing the history of astrology to mythical figures as though they were actual people, just because Maternus or somebody said so. Yet I have seen neo-traditional astrologers do this.
Byjove, I didn't realize you are in the UK. I hear you about problems with some of the lower-tier British universities-- but it's not just them. Some time in the 1990s, a real scramble for students began as university budgets were losing government funding and had to rely more upon tuition dollars to stay solvent. Also goverment funding formulas are often based upon numbers of student credit-hours generated. The rationale seemed to be that lowering university standards would attract more students. My own university department in Canada watered down a lot of its Ph. D. graduation requirements on the grounds that the British universities had done this, and unless we followed suit, we would lose out on admissions.
I found the information on astrologer Ph. D.s on a website hosted by Patrick Curry-- I don't have the URL in front of me, but hopefully you can find it by googling; and then draw your own conclusions about the universities represented. One begins with a K and ends with a t.
Possibly Zoller is critical of the classicists and philologists who did some of the early English translations of the major extant works on ancient astrology. There is a belief among some traditional astrologers today that these academic translators knew diddly-squat about astrology. Fair enough, but what they did know were differences between different time-periods and places in terms of how ancient Greek and Latin were written, which is likely to escape the average astrologer with a background in high school Latin or college Greek. The ancient language background is helpful in determining how a work is put together; which matters in compilations like some of our early astrological texts.
Also, as noted above, I don't think you'd find the historians literally attributing the history of astrology to mythical figures as though they were actual people, just because Maternus or somebody said so. Yet I have seen neo-traditional astrologers do this.
Byjove, I didn't realize you are in the UK. I hear you about problems with some of the lower-tier British universities-- but it's not just them. Some time in the 1990s, a real scramble for students began as university budgets were losing government funding and had to rely more upon tuition dollars to stay solvent. Also goverment funding formulas are often based upon numbers of student credit-hours generated. The rationale seemed to be that lowering university standards would attract more students. My own university department in Canada watered down a lot of its Ph. D. graduation requirements on the grounds that the British universities had done this, and unless we followed suit, we would lose out on admissions.
I found the information on astrologer Ph. D.s on a website hosted by Patrick Curry-- I don't have the URL in front of me, but hopefully you can find it by googling; and then draw your own conclusions about the universities represented. One begins with a K and ends with a t.
Rebel Uranian
Well-known member
May you please explain why you hate Pluto so much?
The main thing that made me want to learn something besides modern is that one day a long time ago I was going to prove that astrology wasn't worthless regardless of whether or not it was nonsense to someone by pulling up their chart, but the interpretations were all too vague so I couldn't do anything. They had almost no aspects on their chart.
Last edited:
piercethevale
Well-known member
I tell you right now whom Zoeller is determined to derail and that's Dane Rudhyar.
That's because Rudhyar is the Man!
I've read Zoeller...still have his book on the Parts...there's some stuff in it that is worth hanging on to ...and i did get that lead to a technique of the Esoteric School of Astrology that I've rectified that also proved Rudhyar's theories pertaining to such. Everything I've produced in my astrological writings has mostly been the result of studying Rudhyar for years.
Zoeller' s book on the Parts is mostly just what he copied from medieval texts and didn't even bother to put any of the passages that are in near unintelligible archaic syntax into something to be more easily understood.
I hate to knock the guy...I hear Zoeller had some sort of nervous breakdown awhile back and has become a paranoid recluse....but, the knowledge and truth come first.
Oh, I should give 'Trad.' astrology it's due credit for most of the basic skills of astrology that i do utilize..but without Rudhyar I would only be just another shmo 'Fatalistic Astrologer' [as that is what 'Trad. Astrology is...].
See, Rudhyar came along and showed the world that their time was done...and he was only outnumbered about two million to one. Tough to admit that you may as well have gone into pharmacology selling leeches to Hospitals as selling medieval astrology.
Resistance is futile...you will all be assimilated...eventually...or forgotten.
...IMHO...of Course!
That's because Rudhyar is the Man!
I've read Zoeller...still have his book on the Parts...there's some stuff in it that is worth hanging on to ...and i did get that lead to a technique of the Esoteric School of Astrology that I've rectified that also proved Rudhyar's theories pertaining to such. Everything I've produced in my astrological writings has mostly been the result of studying Rudhyar for years.
Zoeller' s book on the Parts is mostly just what he copied from medieval texts and didn't even bother to put any of the passages that are in near unintelligible archaic syntax into something to be more easily understood.
I hate to knock the guy...I hear Zoeller had some sort of nervous breakdown awhile back and has become a paranoid recluse....but, the knowledge and truth come first.
Oh, I should give 'Trad.' astrology it's due credit for most of the basic skills of astrology that i do utilize..but without Rudhyar I would only be just another shmo 'Fatalistic Astrologer' [as that is what 'Trad. Astrology is...].
See, Rudhyar came along and showed the world that their time was done...and he was only outnumbered about two million to one. Tough to admit that you may as well have gone into pharmacology selling leeches to Hospitals as selling medieval astrology.
Resistance is futile...you will all be assimilated...eventually...or forgotten.
...IMHO...of Course!
piercethevale
Well-known member
They went after Pluto just a few weeks after I discovered the chart I promote as being that of Yeshua/Jesus which is all about Pluto. I discovered it on Nov, 7, 2004. Check the timeline for when the Astronomers demoted Pluto and how that was achieved. I let it leak about what I had found just a brief time before that vote on Pluto. The more support I garner..the more desperate they get...[I'm not referring to anyone specific here at the forum...besides they know who they are.]
P.S.Did I forget to mention that Pluto is the 'Higher Octave of Mars?
..gee, guess I did...wonder how it slipped my mind?
P.S.Did I forget to mention that Pluto is the 'Higher Octave of Mars?
..gee, guess I did...wonder how it slipped my mind?
Last edited:
OK, here is my take (perspective...experience), for two cents....today's sale only!
Traditional astrology is steered clear by modern people because it is too fatalistic. I have not always been sure why, if people think they really have free will if they are involving themselves in any sort of divinatory system. In my very humble and limited opinion, people do not have free-will. Free-will is earned through understanding limitation.
Take for example, flying. Most people in history wanted to fly but, knew they simply could not. It was not until we both understood and accepted gravity (the limitation) that we began to see the possibility for flying. Granted we can still not fly without the aid of certain technologies which "bend" the rules. Nonetheless, people could not fly till they accepted limitation.
So, with astrology, I believe, traditional astrology was a way of accepting certain fates and destinites and descriptions that, if accepted and understood, would allow a person to see possiblity the value of why that certain restaint existed and the gift within it....and maybe...just maybe bend the "rules" and make something of it. Take for example, the case of a lost object: it is gone, lost, unseen - that is fate. The horary describes where it is (if read accurately) and, lo, there it is. It works on all levels.
Of course many people want to balk and say they are so free, have so much choice and such and such but, it simply is not true until you know yourself and this includes your boundaries and limitations.
Astrology cannot make humans fly or a ring appear in your pocket. You have to see "what is" in order to find oneself...or the ring.
Traditional astrology is steered clear by modern people because it is too fatalistic. I have not always been sure why, if people think they really have free will if they are involving themselves in any sort of divinatory system. In my very humble and limited opinion, people do not have free-will. Free-will is earned through understanding limitation.
Take for example, flying. Most people in history wanted to fly but, knew they simply could not. It was not until we both understood and accepted gravity (the limitation) that we began to see the possibility for flying. Granted we can still not fly without the aid of certain technologies which "bend" the rules. Nonetheless, people could not fly till they accepted limitation.
So, with astrology, I believe, traditional astrology was a way of accepting certain fates and destinites and descriptions that, if accepted and understood, would allow a person to see possiblity the value of why that certain restaint existed and the gift within it....and maybe...just maybe bend the "rules" and make something of it. Take for example, the case of a lost object: it is gone, lost, unseen - that is fate. The horary describes where it is (if read accurately) and, lo, there it is. It works on all levels.
Of course many people want to balk and say they are so free, have so much choice and such and such but, it simply is not true until you know yourself and this includes your boundaries and limitations.
Astrology cannot make humans fly or a ring appear in your pocket. You have to see "what is" in order to find oneself...or the ring.
Rebel Uranian
Well-known member
What is limitation?
Last edited:
byjove. regarding the robert zoller quote via your post @ top "He suggest(s) that a great degree of modern astrology is unproven and some of it just nonsense."
i agree with him ... here is the catcher you have to keep a very close eye on though...
go read some of the older books referred to as traditional astrology and guess what? sandstone suggests that "a great degree of traditional astrology is unproven and some of it just nonsense.."
i base this off my own experience reading literature from both realms.. it pays to think critically... take the good and leave the rest.. one can do this regardless of the time-line of trad and modern astrology, but it requires critical thinking..
i agree with him ... here is the catcher you have to keep a very close eye on though...
go read some of the older books referred to as traditional astrology and guess what? sandstone suggests that "a great degree of traditional astrology is unproven and some of it just nonsense.."
i base this off my own experience reading literature from both realms.. it pays to think critically... take the good and leave the rest.. one can do this regardless of the time-line of trad and modern astrology, but it requires critical thinking..
Last edited:
MSO
Well-known member
You're under the assumption that astronomers demoted Pluto because you found a relation to Jesus' birth?
Oh boy...
piercethevale
Well-known member
You're under the assumption that astronomers demoted Pluto because you found a relation to Jesus' birth?
Oh boy...
Did I say that? I don't think I did, I was just pointing out what odd coincidences there seems to be lately.
I do appreciate your acknowledging that I found a relation to Jesus' birth though, thank you.
Hey, btw...did you know that Pluto is the Higher Octave of Mars?
I mean I thought it had a better than 50/50 chance of being true but I found two unassociated excerpts from ancient texts of the Mazdakis of Persia from over ...I believe 1200 years ago ...maybe older and some from the "Books of Jeu", a very, very rare text that, I believe there are less than a dozen of ...and no one is sure if any of those are intact but possibly one or two...that, these excepts give solid evidence that all 9 planets were known of by some people or number of people form these long vanished [or scattered] kingdoms/civilizations of ancient Persia [the vicinity, anyways] that disappeared under Islamic rule.
this is the very area that the Magi were said to have come from.
I'll be studying these for the next few days and start a thread on this by this weekend...or early next week.
Hole signs?
..HOLY SIGNS....
Remember that the mighty oak was once a nut like you.
Last edited:
piercethevale
Well-known member
I agree, that 'Trad' Astrology tried to make you believe in a destiny that the stars would steer you towards that as often as not [or more often] is 'fatalistic'.
As Edgar Cayce pointed out ...don't take that to mean it will happen...use your free will.
But, Edgar also said to not use Astrology as it was known in the 1900 to 1940 time period as it was so messed up that it would be unpropitious to do so...it would only lead your astray, or to ruin ..maybe even an untimely death.
He said the knowledge had been known but was lost and/or corrupted.
Those of you that have read and studied Cayce know that He said tha Jesus was taught Astrology in a mystery shool in Egypt...real astrology...that apparently was a major subject that he knew He had to learn, must learn...and Edgar said that too.
So, why the discrepancy..the conflict of stories?
Because the Astrology that Jesus was taught isn't what the 'Trads'.' are promoting...which is the same Astrology as it was in the era of 1900 to 1940...as it was in 1200 AD ...as it was in 800 AD...etc.
I've shown in my chart, that I propose is that of Yeshua/Jesus, that He did exactly what his birth chart said He would do...
So, If Jesus was learning 'Real Astrology' ...and I show that by these techniques of Rudhyar and proper interpretation of the Sabian Symbols, that Rudhyar provided, illustrate undeniably that Jesus did exactly what He is known to have done ...and its from this system of understanding and Astrological technique and the chart that I'm promoting that it is shown...
Then what Astrological knowledge and technique do you think Yeshua/Jesus was studying?
Anyone...?
Last edited:
piercethevale
Well-known member
That's amazing...wow, how did you get around the 10 character minimum rule to post?
Oh, I apologize. You do have ten characters...
let me try it...
Did you know that Pluto is the higher octave of Mars?
Okay, now...let's see if it'll post...
Oh, silly me, I forgot I already wrote a bunch of characters.
MSO
Well-known member
Could it be that Cayce was referring to the "forecasts" of Sun sign astrology written in newspapers and magazines, which were growing increasingly popular at the time?
piercethevale
Well-known member
Remaining threads?
That wouldn't be those of the Amen priests now would it?
Because as Freud pointed out in his book, "Moses and Montheism" the only thing that remained form the 'Egyptian' temple sciences after Akenaton was assassinated and the Amen priests took over the Aton priests and all their adherents and families were run out of Egypt lead by Moses, the Chief Aton priest....was of the Amen.
..and as both Cayce and Freud said that the Hebrew religion is really the old Aton religion, I seriously doubt that Jesus was learning any Amen sciences...and Cayce didn't say that Jesus was taught by an Egyptian ..only that the special construct of the Pryramid was used as it was built by the science of the Aton priests and certain initiations needed to be done also in those Pyramids at the same time Jesus was there to learn Astrology...Truth is, as Cayce said, he was taught by a Persian....I don't think any Magi came from Egypt either...I understand they came from the EAST...Persia....
Amen was the dark, horned God...that rules over death, gambling, banking, usury, money changing, gambling...etc.
Aton was represented by the Sun...as the Sun is Gods proxy here in the physical universe...it says so in Genesis, doesn't it?
Last edited: