piercethevale
Well-known member
I've yet to hear a convincing argument to explain how these stellar bodies that are long since removed from where there are perceived to be...in fact some are literally billions of light years away... are indeed a source of Zodiacal affect or have any specific effect upon events here on Earth.
The fact that the known Astrological attributes of the various signs are still presently in affect right where they are presently stated to be in extant and of influence and have always been discerned to be...that is specifically by definition and reference, the Tropical Zodiac... coupled with my own findings and demonstrations, that the Sabian Symbols have always been in synchronizational conjunction with the Vernal Equinox, is and will remain as the conclusive evidence, as to my own convictions and beliefs andin support of those established beliefs in Tropical Astrology which is avowed to and supported by the application of such and the works produced by an undeniable majority of Astrologers.
All I've seen from you posts so far is, what is known or referred to as "argumentum ad verecundiam"* [among those that have studied Logic and know of its forms and how it is used] coupled with a generous portion of 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' as it is known. [which is, for anyone unfamiliar with the term, basically a selective and biased presentation of facts] coupled in turn also with obvious [to me, anyways] confirmation bias.
The day you can convince me that the first day of spring isn't the first degree of those thirty assigned to and recognized as the attributes and influences of the Sign known as Aries and the same as to the Sabian Symbols inseparable from them is when I will concede you may actually know something about astrology.
My own tentative conclusion is that the constellations and such were given by the ancients as mnemonics to a humankind gradually becoming of lesser intellectual capability as is know to us of Vedic study as a result of the cycles of the Yugas. The only logical conclusion from all I've found and for which i cite and give ref. for in a couple of threads here at this forum and others, is that all such influences are directly or indirectly attributable to nothing else but our own Sun and our own Planets' cyclic relation to it.
I advise all AW members that ascribe all such astrological influences to that of a 'Tropical Zodiac' to be most judicious in considering anything in this thread to being factual as to even being Astronomically true and most certainly as to what is being espoused as for or as to any conclusive evidence as to being a reason for or as to any irrefutable conclusions.
I will make no further comments about what this forum member is extolling on the subject of fixed stars and parans. [And, as a matter of fact, I would've ignored any differences of opinion and or beliefs, as to my own, right from the onset. There are more beliefs, and reasons for said beliefs here at this forum, that differ from by my own, than the number of members that I can produce or name that agree with mine and I don't by habit, predilection or motive go around refuting them all, or any one for that matter, just because it, or they, do. But, he choose to begin his campaign for this 'cause' of his, that is, for a belief in a veracity of the influence of 'Fixed stars and parans and that of an indubitable and incontestable source, and or reason for conforming, accepting or believing so...by first off making partial deliberations and statements as to and about the subject of the Star of Bethlehem, the Magi and the birth of Yeshua/Jesus. Which is one subject I have passionately dedicated many years of research, study, examination and objective, un-biased introspection to, [and hence, as for the reason of which, a particular subject I am very much decided about and opinionated on and account for reasons which I feel justifiable as thus for being so...] and have given a mountain of dissertation, presentation and explanation of factual evidence, supportive source material of direct of indirect support of, corroborating knowledge from a source or of multiple sources both independent from and in collusive association to one or a number of others and as to which I cite all references and such. In fact it is the one subject I devote more of my time, sweat and travail to...far more, than any other.
This view that certain stars have malefic and determinate influences is of old superstitious belief that too many cling to and with out any cause that I can ascertain to be, other than some that of some allegiance to a 'traditional' view that give the protagonist some comfort and a perception of and allusion to validity because of a large number of other adherents and fellow travelers.
As being one of what many loosely refer to as a 'Modernist' [as I am decidedly Rudhyarian and unabashedly so,] I have no belief, sentiment or sympathy for, to or in the theory [or theories] of fixed star influences.
In the old Hebrew language there are no separate words for 'Planet' and 'Star'. When a specific Planet is intended then the name of that Planet is used otherwise the generic Hebrew word KWKB 'star' is used. There is but a couple/few, [and I mean very, very few...as to literally being only possibly more than a couple that i do know of] passages that mention a couple of specific constellations other than those of the Zodiac itself but not in reference to any 'Cosmic/Astrological influences that might be cited as evidence for a Kabbalistic belief in fixed star influence.
I ask, as specifically to Kabbalistic Astrology, just where did the idea of, or what is that source of verifiable evidence one might cite as to, a belief that a multitude of stars [or any Star for that matter... other than what is meant by 'star' in the Hebrew language, that is exclusive of any other meaning other than , a 'Planet'] that allegedly have affect and these alleged or any particular ascribable or discernible influence or influences?
The only answer is [that I know of is; 'there isn't any." ... and I have yet to be told otherwise by anyone with the credentials or authority to do so nor has anyone ever shown me any evidence or written work of acknowledged authority as pertaining to matters of Kabbalistic concerns and beliefs that states otherwise. [and I don't mean commentary from the Talmud...as that is Rabbinical opinion and not direct and irrefutable scriptural source from the Tanakh, which is the only thing acceptable by my criteria of qualification]...
* And, as to my own opinion, of questionable authority unless you wish to give cause to believe otherwise ...such as can you present any documentation to the claim, a proof of membership in the IAU or something comparable as to coroborating and establishing such a claim as fact?
The fact that the known Astrological attributes of the various signs are still presently in affect right where they are presently stated to be in extant and of influence and have always been discerned to be...that is specifically by definition and reference, the Tropical Zodiac... coupled with my own findings and demonstrations, that the Sabian Symbols have always been in synchronizational conjunction with the Vernal Equinox, is and will remain as the conclusive evidence, as to my own convictions and beliefs andin support of those established beliefs in Tropical Astrology which is avowed to and supported by the application of such and the works produced by an undeniable majority of Astrologers.
All I've seen from you posts so far is, what is known or referred to as "argumentum ad verecundiam"* [among those that have studied Logic and know of its forms and how it is used] coupled with a generous portion of 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' as it is known. [which is, for anyone unfamiliar with the term, basically a selective and biased presentation of facts] coupled in turn also with obvious [to me, anyways] confirmation bias.
The day you can convince me that the first day of spring isn't the first degree of those thirty assigned to and recognized as the attributes and influences of the Sign known as Aries and the same as to the Sabian Symbols inseparable from them is when I will concede you may actually know something about astrology.
My own tentative conclusion is that the constellations and such were given by the ancients as mnemonics to a humankind gradually becoming of lesser intellectual capability as is know to us of Vedic study as a result of the cycles of the Yugas. The only logical conclusion from all I've found and for which i cite and give ref. for in a couple of threads here at this forum and others, is that all such influences are directly or indirectly attributable to nothing else but our own Sun and our own Planets' cyclic relation to it.
I advise all AW members that ascribe all such astrological influences to that of a 'Tropical Zodiac' to be most judicious in considering anything in this thread to being factual as to even being Astronomically true and most certainly as to what is being espoused as for or as to any conclusive evidence as to being a reason for or as to any irrefutable conclusions.
I will make no further comments about what this forum member is extolling on the subject of fixed stars and parans. [And, as a matter of fact, I would've ignored any differences of opinion and or beliefs, as to my own, right from the onset. There are more beliefs, and reasons for said beliefs here at this forum, that differ from by my own, than the number of members that I can produce or name that agree with mine and I don't by habit, predilection or motive go around refuting them all, or any one for that matter, just because it, or they, do. But, he choose to begin his campaign for this 'cause' of his, that is, for a belief in a veracity of the influence of 'Fixed stars and parans and that of an indubitable and incontestable source, and or reason for conforming, accepting or believing so...by first off making partial deliberations and statements as to and about the subject of the Star of Bethlehem, the Magi and the birth of Yeshua/Jesus. Which is one subject I have passionately dedicated many years of research, study, examination and objective, un-biased introspection to, [and hence, as for the reason of which, a particular subject I am very much decided about and opinionated on and account for reasons which I feel justifiable as thus for being so...] and have given a mountain of dissertation, presentation and explanation of factual evidence, supportive source material of direct of indirect support of, corroborating knowledge from a source or of multiple sources both independent from and in collusive association to one or a number of others and as to which I cite all references and such. In fact it is the one subject I devote more of my time, sweat and travail to...far more, than any other.
This view that certain stars have malefic and determinate influences is of old superstitious belief that too many cling to and with out any cause that I can ascertain to be, other than some that of some allegiance to a 'traditional' view that give the protagonist some comfort and a perception of and allusion to validity because of a large number of other adherents and fellow travelers.
As being one of what many loosely refer to as a 'Modernist' [as I am decidedly Rudhyarian and unabashedly so,] I have no belief, sentiment or sympathy for, to or in the theory [or theories] of fixed star influences.
In the old Hebrew language there are no separate words for 'Planet' and 'Star'. When a specific Planet is intended then the name of that Planet is used otherwise the generic Hebrew word KWKB 'star' is used. There is but a couple/few, [and I mean very, very few...as to literally being only possibly more than a couple that i do know of] passages that mention a couple of specific constellations other than those of the Zodiac itself but not in reference to any 'Cosmic/Astrological influences that might be cited as evidence for a Kabbalistic belief in fixed star influence.
I ask, as specifically to Kabbalistic Astrology, just where did the idea of, or what is that source of verifiable evidence one might cite as to, a belief that a multitude of stars [or any Star for that matter... other than what is meant by 'star' in the Hebrew language, that is exclusive of any other meaning other than , a 'Planet'] that allegedly have affect and these alleged or any particular ascribable or discernible influence or influences?
The only answer is [that I know of is; 'there isn't any." ... and I have yet to be told otherwise by anyone with the credentials or authority to do so nor has anyone ever shown me any evidence or written work of acknowledged authority as pertaining to matters of Kabbalistic concerns and beliefs that states otherwise. [and I don't mean commentary from the Talmud...as that is Rabbinical opinion and not direct and irrefutable scriptural source from the Tanakh, which is the only thing acceptable by my criteria of qualification]...
* And, as to my own opinion, of questionable authority unless you wish to give cause to believe otherwise ...such as can you present any documentation to the claim, a proof of membership in the IAU or something comparable as to coroborating and establishing such a claim as fact?
Last edited:
