The soul and astrology

Hi! I decided to share my view of the soul as shown through astrology because I think it's not a topic that's often discussed in Western astrology.
I had a difficult time believeing that the Sun is an indicator of my soul and basic expression and mission. I still have. And that's because the soul is not in any way shown in the horoscope. Not even personality as I perceive it. Our soul can be basically everywhere. We can be having hundreds and thousands and millions of incarnations at this same moment(although such term as moment is equal to infinity because time doesn't exist for our real forms). Our soul is not conscious but we can be conscious of it not only by realizing its role in the incarnation we're currently experiencing on, for example, Earth, but by partly or fully connecting to it, not through feelings(they're more a part of our spirit which is a part of our body along with our physical body) but through the senses that don't belong on this plane.
But if we agree that the soul has a home, not a place but a source or an emanating essence, then the influences the 'material' will have on this 'home', on our soul, would certainly not be our Solar system influences. The astrological chart we normally use is the 'me'in this incarnation but it's not as real as we may think. IF we fully realize the nature of our soul and connect with this 'home' then we start to experience completely different influences, those which our soul is experiencing in its most true form. I will again say it that we don't do this through feelings. We must transcend our physical AND spiritual forms in order to embrace US, where there is no consciousness but only senses and wholeness. So in the process of doing this our horosope starts to loose its importance and credibility because in the 'place' where WE ARE there is certainly something we can call 'real astrology' - cosmos we're not able to perceive. I've heard that we as creatures of the third race cannot understand why and how things are - the ultimate creation, for example. We just take as true that creation happened and still happens but we can't explain how. This is something only a 5th race consciousness can do and not even in a conscious way. Try to imagine that you are a creature of the 5th race or that you're are just a creature connected fully to the Truth and the whole universe - what are the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Mars, Venus etc. then? They're indicative of this material form, of this incarnation, but transcend yourself, leave yourself - what astrology do you encounter? All the lives you have - all the stars and moons and planets - all so distant and negligible compared to YOU. They're your expression but if you can be your true and only expression what would you be? What if some day you come to know it? Will you say then - I am a Cancer or will you say - I AM?

And I understand that the planets do not have a direct influence. Like, for example, Mars is making me do this and that. No, you are doing it, but Mars is reflecting it in a way your consciousness can understand it. One of the functions our Universe has is to be a map for so many different things but yet so many different things remain invisible.

To say there is a soul (which demands a definition) is to make an unfounded assumption.

If we define "soul" as "an immortal and personal entity (a discrete being) that survives our physical death," ... what grounds do we have for assuming the existence of such a thing?

The Moon has typically been the significator for "soul". Personally, I think that the "soul" is basically a projection of our fear of mortality, and is our vain attempt to extend our ego into time.

Did "you" choose this present incarnation, or were you just born into it, a new creature (soul) brought forth to meet the needs of a time and place within eternity?

What if there is no personal soul and you live and die and that's that? All done. How does that feel to you? Doesn't bother me a bit. I'm still immortal spirit. But "me" comes and goes, a wisp of smoke. I'm at peace with that; it feels good, right, true. And my ego isn't involved.

Here's a poem by Wallace McRae.....http://www.cowboypoetry.com/mcrae.htm#Rein

It explains the action of Pluto...transformation.

greybeard said:

Personally, I think that the "soul" is basically a projection of our fear of mortality, and is our vain attempt to extend our ego into time.

Click to expand...

Our man incarnation and 'us', as our ego views us, are projections of our soul that has never been born and will never die. Life is a kind of an expression of the soul. What we do, what we think and feel - our spirit, our body, are soul expressions.

greybeard said:

Did "you" choose this present incarnation, or were you just born into it, a new creature (soul) brought forth to meet the needs of a time and place within eternity?

Click to expand...

The soul is not fully brought with us when we're born. And we may never connect to it in a lifetime. In fact, it is rare, that connection. I don't think 'choice' is the right word because, as I previously said, the soul doesn't have consciousness like our spirit and ego(the ego probably being the consciousness of the spirit, the thing with which we realize our personality and current mission, the thing with which we realize the mortality of our body). My present incarnation is an instinctive 'choice'of my soul, considering its individual path and purpose that probably cannot be realized through my current position of a human being. The humans aren't able to fully understand the 'how' and the 'why'of the ultimate creation and existence. So discussing these things by the position of the human is irrelevant. We should be discussing them by the position of our souls.

greybeard said:

What if there is no personal soul and you live and die and that's that? All done. How does that feel to you? Doesn't bother me a bit. I'm still immortal spirit. But "me" comes and goes, a wisp of smoke. I'm at peace with that; it feels good, right, true. And my ego isn't involved.

Click to expand...

"What if?" Meaning that I have the right and am able to question what truth there is after I already know its nature and experienced it in certain moments of transcendce? This again is our ego trying to comprehend what exists outside its "radar" and what is not meant to be brought completely to mortal human life but only partly expressed trough our Earth mission that is one of many which are parts of one soul mission. And I don't yet know if that soul mission is like having an idea about what you have to eventually do. No, it's more like trying to 'remember' the 'what', the 'how' and 'why' of which 'why' would be the last question and answer. It's like 'returning' to the Center from where we come, where we are and where we will be. It is impossible to be explained though the human language and the ever wondering mind, it is not meant to.

Life and death in that poem are the mortal terms. Rebirth - the means through which the spirit experiences itself through the different lifetimes. These are the details, and they're true, but not all there is.

That's all well and good.

This life is all I can know for sure (??)....

So I guess it all boils down to what I do in the Here and Now.

I shouldda been born a dog. Then I wouldn't have to mess with all these Mysteries.

One thing I've noticed about dogs... They live in a constant state of joy (ananda), they give unconditional love (which must mean they live in love), they take life like it comes without wishing for what isn't. I think flowers do that too. These creatures fully understand "I AM", as evidenced in the way they live.

I was wondering who this Daenerys lady was... I see she is a queen in a TV fantasy. Fantasies are fun; they have no obligation to reality.

Your current incarnation and your natal chart are merely a play and the script of the play. It is no more "real" than a play is "reality". It's a show, interactive art. The script is a general outline of the play but the play changes continually.

Picture having five glasses of water in front of you, each one a different temperature. One can be hot, another ice water, the rest somewhere in-between. You can take one hand and put a finger in each one - you can focus on each one individually, feeling only the hot, or the cold, or one of the others, or several simultaneously. You can put two or three fingers in one glass. Your conscious perception of each finger and each glass is the soul experiencing each one. You are not your finger or the experience of the water, but the perception of it. You choose the glass, the water or liquid, the temperature, which fingers to use. You choose your natal chart and the experiences in the same manner. If one is too hot, you can learn the lessons and pour the cold water from one into it. You can choose not to learn the lessons and burn your finger. You can learn to adapt. When you are done you can take all your fingers out, get new glasses, and start over or do something different entirely. The soul remembers each glass and each experience, but the glass of liquid itself is temporary and fleeting, one of many.

greybeard said:

That's all well and good.

This life is all I can know for sure (??)....

So I guess it all boils down to what I do in the Here and Now.

I shouldda been born a dog. Then I wouldn't have to mess with all these Mysteries.

One thing I've noticed about dogs... They live in a constant state of joy (ananda), they give unconditional love (which must mean they live in love), they take life like it comes without wishing for what isn't. I think flowers do that too. These creatures fully understand "I AM", as evidenced in the way they live.

I was wondering who this Daenerys lady was... I see she is a queen in a TV fantasy. Fantasies are fun; they have no obligation to reality.

Click to expand...

Now if I could see where the Sun, Moon and Mars are in that flower's chart I guess everything the flower is would make sense, wouldn't it?
That lady, Daenerys, has a good saying - "They can live in my new world or they can die in their old one." The one world exists, the other is still an idea but if you know "Game of Thrones" you will certainly question the existence even of the obvious.
The 'here and now' are fun too, but hey have no obligation to my world. I AM but 'where and when' is a rather fantastical box where I try to put myself and pretend that the box is all I can be for sure.

mdinaz said:

Your current incarnation and your natal chart are merely a play and the script of the play. It is no more "real" than a play is "reality". It's a show, interactive art. The script is a general outline of the play but the play changes continually.

Picture having five glasses of water in front of you, each one a different temperature. One can be hot, another ice water, the rest somewhere in-between. You can take one hand and put a finger in each one - you can focus on each one individually, feeling only the hot, or the cold, or one of the others, or several simultaneously. You can put two or three fingers in one glass. Your conscious perception of each finger and each glass is the soul experiencing each one. You are not your finger or the experience of the water, but the perception of it. You choose the glass, the water or liquid, the temperature, which fingers to use. You choose your natal chart and the experiences in the same manner. If one is too hot, you can learn the lessons and pour the cold water from one into it. You can choose not to learn the lessons and burn your finger. You can learn to adapt. When you are done you can take all your fingers out, get new glasses, and start over or do something different entirely. The soul remembers each glass and each experience, but the glass of liquid itself is temporary and fleeting, one of many.

Click to expand...

My perception of the glasses of water is the conscious experience of the different plays of my soul but are the lessons the main purpose? Am I here or wherever to learn what I don't know or what I know but haven't consciously experienced it before? The planets in the 'here and now' are unable to describe the "Cosmic centre" that is at one time a creation with a beginning and a creator that constantly expereinces itself through its creations. They're rather the 'here and now', the illusion I have for myself. If I can connect to reality then that reality would have other influences, right? There would be different "stars and moons and asteroids" and...If only I could know them from my current position.

Read pioneer Modernist Charles Carter's "The Zodiac and the Soul": I think you'll derive much insight from it!

dr. farr said:

Read pioneer Modernist Charles Carter's "The Zodiac and the Soul": I think you'll derive much insight from it!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately, I can't read it right now but I started reading a little bit about esoteric astrology and more specifically - the seven rays. I'll see if it fits my perspectives.

I personally found Jeff Green's work in "Pluto, The Evolutionary Journey of The Soul" very interesting and I agree with his definition of what a soul is..

He states:
" According to many spiritual, religious and metaphysical sources, including the Bahagavad-Gita and the Bible, the soul is an immutable consciousness that has its own individuality or identity that remains intact from life to life. In each lifetime, of course, the Soul manifests a personality that has a subjective consciousness and unconsciousness. (and so on etc.. )

He then goes on to say how the planets from Saturn out to Pluto formulate a structure of consciousness right down to the Soul, the Soul is represented by Pluto Symbolism in the natal chart and its relation to the nodal axis, the rulers of the nodal axis and any aspects they have.

One of the most thought provoking and powerful astrological writers of his generation in my opinion, but only if you accept or consider "evolutionary" concepts in interpreting a natal chart.

Just curious to know where in the Bhagavad Gita (and for that matter the Bible) it says that "the soul is an immutable consciousness that has its own individuality or identity that remains intact from life to life." Thanks.

greybeard said:

Just curious to know where in the Bhagavad Gita (and for that matter the Bible) it says that "the soul is an immutable consciousness that has its own individuality or identity that remains intact from life to life." Thanks.

Click to expand...

I don't have copy of Bhagavad Gita, and even if I did, I would probe the genuineness of its english translation, so we will just have to take Jeff's word for it, unless of course you want to do your own research?.. and it depends (in my opinion) what version of the Bible your talking about? as you probably know, the Christian Bible has been translated many times over. I think the King James Version as interpreted for the church of England with apocrypha would probably be the best bet because its the 3rd version to be converted to english after the puritans (a faction in the church of england at the time), questioned problems in the earlier english translations. Its written in old english (circa 1600s)

So, therein lies the problem, old texts that are subject to interpretation techniques. In any case, my intuition is telling me there is something of substance in this work of Jeff's. Subjective as that maybe.

Yes, subjective is a fine word.

I have Jeff's book, in the original English.
I have the Gita, in the fine English translatiion by Juan Mascaro, a Spaniard. It's been a constant companion of mine for over 30 years.
And of course the good old KJV.

I just wanted to learn of the documentation (authority) for the statement about the individual soul, and apparently it lies somewhere beneath the murky waters of Somewhere Indefinite, and all I have to do is sift through over 800 pages of fine print and possibly ambiguous statements to find it -- or accept the claim in blind faith, "subject to interpretation."

I also found intriguing your recent post to the "I hate my horoscope" thread, implying that by changing the system of horoscopy (the zodiac) AriesCancer can change his character and fate. Interesting concept.

greybeard said:

I also found intriguing your recent post to the "I hate my horoscope" thread, implying that by changing the system of horoscopy AriesCancer can change his fate. Interesting concept.

Click to expand...

ariescancer's fate is entirely in his or hers hands, I never forget the fact that all of us have free will, irrespective of what any astrologer, within any school of astrological thought says. The natal chart, as I'm sure your aware, is only a map to indicate strengths and weaknesses. The individuals free will is the final force that can express it or not. Where that map comes from is "how we view the heavens" so to speak.

The Christian tradition can agree with the quote from Jeff Green to a point. Immediately the main problem is with this italicizes portion: "the soul is an immutable consciousness that has its own individuality or identity that remains intact from life to life." The part about an immutable conscious that has its own individuality or identity may or may not be a little tricky as well.

There is no mention of reincarnation of a Hindu-like kind in the Bible and the Christian tradition overall (because the "Christian tradition" is really a wide range of varying ideas and debates, but on this it's pretty consistent) doesn't believe in reincarnation EXCEPT in these cases: 1) the dead that occasionally rise. Jesus is not the only person in the Bible to come back from the dead. The list includes Lazarus, Tabitha in Acts raised by Peter, a man in II Kings raised by Elisha's bones, and a not-too-short list of several others. But, these figures return in their adult bodies. They don't recycle into different lives, from cradle to grave. 2) Paul gives an account in 1 Corinthians 15 of the end game of Christianity: at the end of history, Christians rise for the dead, given new life, but with new, incorruptible bodies.
Otherwise, the notion that a permanent soul retains an identity through multiple incarnations is not a Christian notion and not in the Bible.

The Old Testament, a Jewish text, doesn't offer an account or even a sense of life after death. The New Testament clearly does, though.

As for the notion of a consistent identity and individuality to the soul, this is always a tricky spot for me. It's not clear that the notion of an afterlife presented in the Bible actually fits the common story of drifting up to the pearly gates that has become so popular within the Christian tradition. Particularly, the notion in the New Testament seems to be that when we die we just die, but at the end of history we return and are given our lives back, but in a perfected version. It's really not clear to me that the vision of the soul in the Bible is the common notion of a sort of consciousness or energy separate from our body that is housed in the body (the body like a nutshell) and then released after death. I think it's realy arguable that in the New Testament the soul and the body are a package deal. Thus the promise is Resurrection in the end times, body and soul together, perfected.
As far as what Jesus or the four Gospels actually say about the character of the soul, when I go looking I only ever find one moment that suggests anything about it. It's a story in all three Synoptic gospels (all but John). I'll draw off the Mark version, in Mark 12. The Sadducees(elite priests) who don't accept the doctrine of life after death, try to catch Jesus in a logic puzzle. They say, "imagine a woman who's husband dies, so she marries his brother, and he dies so she marries the next brother, etc etc on through seven brothers. One wife for seven brothers." (You'd think around the fourth or fifth brother he'd clue in, no?) "Who," they ask, "is she married to after the resurrection?" This is Jesus' response (NIV, I think):
"When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

So while something like what Jeff Green is talking about does seem to in the Christian tradition (if we take out the "life after life" part), the Bible itself, if we pay attention, presents I think a more complex and tricky picture.


On the Gita, I'll just say for now that the idea of a consistent soul that travels through time reincarnating in different lives is definitely Hindu theology. I don't know if or where it is in the Gita, but i can look into that. But also note that Hinduism is the most pluralistic of the world's great religions. There more than anywhere we'll find a plethora of different ideas on any concept, including the soul. (Though I think a basic notion of a reincarnating atman is pretty consistent.)
Interestingly, we know that at least some ancient Greeks believed in reincarnation because we have works where they talk and debate about it. Plato discusses reincarnation at the end of the Republic, but that's tricky too because he's talking about it as a myth, so it's not clear whether he believed in it himself or not. But just that he's talking about it suggests it was at least familiar to the culture.

Christians rise for the dead, given new life, but with new, incorruptible bodies.

This is quite possibly metaphorical, and the open mind will admit this possibility as equally likely with the possibility of a literal interpretation.


[I use the Juan Mascaro translation, quoted here:]
Bh.G. 2:12-13 Because we all have been for all time: I, and thou, and those kings of men. And we all shall be for all time, we all forever and ever. As the Spirit of our mortal body wanders on in childhood, and youth and old age, the Spirit wanders on to a new body: of this the sage has no doubts. My question here is, what is the form of the body? Is it necessarily a human body, or may it be of some other sort?

2:22 As a man leaves an old garment and puts on one that is new, the Spirit leaves his mortal body and then puts on one that is new. The syntax here gives us mortal body and then one that is new [i.e., one, a body,]
without specifying (is it intended?) whether it is mortal or not.

2:26 But if he were born again and again, and again and again he were to die, even then, victorious man, cease thou from sorrow. The little word "if" is interesting. It seems (to me at least) that the door is left open to "does this [reincarnation] happen at all?" It may not.

The theme of the Bhagavad Gita throughout its 18 chapters is transcendence, perfection, peace in the here and now. When the book speaks of the future, that future when it arrives will be the here and now. That is all there is, the cutting edge of eternity. The Spirit is timeless, dwells within cycles, but is beyond time.

Because of the strength and consistency of this theme throughout the book...the Spirit is in all things and all things are within (of, are) the Spiriit at all times and places..., because the book is clearly directed to this present moment, when it speaks of past lives, the term may as easily as not refer to the mutitude of past lives I have lived since my birth, as well as those before birth.

If Jeff Green interprets the Gita literally, then he believes in past and future incarrnations of an individual soul (which he does.) I, on the other hand, believe that the many passages referring to the Spirit (not the soul, a word which is also used in the Gita) taking on a new body are metaphorical and refer to the Universal Spirit and not the individual soul. The general tone of the book as a whole leads me to believe this is the correct interpretation, while recognzing that the other, or both are possible. In another chapter Krishna describes some of the illimitable forms he takes, and these are his bodies without number.

The concept of reincarnation is rooted in cultures that are not particularly concerned about the ego. In contrast, most of us live in a world where the ego is aggrandized, disconnected and is often thought to be (or having the ability to become) omnipotent, at least within the inner life. I think it's a good thing to keep this in mind.

What we, in the West, often call the "soul", is mostly referred to as the "mind" in the East. The "mind" (the ego together with its subconscious contents and habituated responses, etc), is usually believed to die with the body. Whatever is meant by "soul", is not what contemporary psychology calls "psyche".

My guess is that our tunnel vision about - or rather, obsession with - the "individual soul" (which is not only contrasted to a "collective" soul, but also to the notion of multiple souls, for example) emerged at about the same time as monotheism gained power: the supremacy and total control of one deity over the universe (nature and "spirits" or "angels" etc included) went hand in hand with man's disconnection from nature (given "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth" etc), and this all does not seem unrelated to the world as we experience it today (capitalism, alienation, etc).

Most non-monotheistic cultures have some kind of a concept of "reincarnation". These tend to be the same cultures that don't make too big a fuss around the "ego" or the "individual" (soul), and that promote compassion for all life.

In nature, the seed grows into a plant, which flowers, disperses its seeds and (sooner or later) dies. The new seed is both the same and not the same as the old one. The only thing we can say is that the seed of a poppy will not grow into an oak tree...

As far as I'm concerned with this topic, any discussion involving the Christian Bible today has to take into account the understanding of the discoveries found in the dead sea scrolls which were "stumbled" upon back in 1947.
I'm not going ramble on about them in relation to astrology as they are still subject to academic & archeological investigations.
I'd suggest using your favorite search engine for obviously internet research, or even visiting the institutions that have them for further individual investigation.