Does pluto really matter?

If traditional western and Vedic astrologers happily get by with out it, more power to them. I know that my horoscope-reading ability would be hampered without Pluto in the repertory.[/QUOTE]

I actually came across some literature online (can't seem to find the appropriate link else I would have posted it), which suggested that the ancient Puranas (ancient text of astrology, astronomy and mythology) had actually predicted that in the new era of Kali-yuga (age of darkness, which we are currently going through and have another 432,000 Vedic years to complete), 3 planets shall be discovered in the future. This author of this article to which I refer to, has suggested that now Vedic astrology has begun to accept the significance of the Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Uranus represents Bhrama (the generator), Neptune (Maya/illusions) represents Vishnu (the operator) and Pluto's deathly/transformational like characteristic represents Shiva/Mahesh (the destroyer). If you add the three together it forms G + O + D = GOD. Strangely enough the seers of ancient appear to have been right. Coincidence? I'm not at all sure myself.

Positively: your capacity for self-transformation, often in the face of difficulties. How you respond with courage and conviction in the face of all the odds stacked against you. Cyclical sense of time, with rebirth following death: the phoenix archetype.

Negatively: How you get embroiled in inter-personal power struggles, how you attract ruthless people into your life (or become ruthless), how massive events beyond your control sweep you up in them.

Click to expand...

A very accurate means of describing Pluto's role.

If you have any doubts about Pluto, see if you can find charts of people you know with sun-square Pluto natally; or look to hard Pluto transits in your life so far.

Other dwarf planets are under investigation. I don't think the small amount of research on them has been conclusive. I've spent a fair bit of time studying Ceres, and so far I don't see it having the impact of Pluto.

Click to expand...

I have Sun square Pluto natally, and I can most certainly say that it has lived up to textbook description especially as it's in my 5th house. My relationship with my father is like a radioactive isotope ready to unstable U-239!
[/QUOTE]

Phoenix Venus said:

I see the sunrise quite a bit actually AND I would like to keep it that way so I would appreciate if you didn't make personal comments.

Like I said before about that theory of what is visible, I will say again: It is a shallow view based on the way it works. What we SEE with our visual perception is only half of it. The rest is working on the inside. And there is a lot going on in there. That is reflecting against the cosmos.... and not just material comfort.

So I will just repeat this any of you who come into this thread to pick a fight with me. this thread is not in the traditional forum anymore. and also i have no reason to prove anything to those who wish to dance in circles.

Click to expand...

You see shallow, I see depth, language and meaning. Who's to say who is more perceptive?

But, since I am of a more practical nature than theoretical, and if it is not too personal a question for you, can you tell me how you would delineate the the asteroid 1998 KY? What is its significations, how can you rationalise these? Secondly, what of all the objects as yet undiscovered? Surely you are now working with an incomplete palette and it would be almost impossible for you to make correct predictions until all of these are discovered. Thirdly, what of the theory (fact?) that our solar system rotates around other systems, and is fractally a solar system within a solar system. How do you delineate this? If not, why not?

waybread said:

Here are pictures of Pluto taken from the Hubble telescope. It sure looks like light to me.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Planets/PLUTOSLD.HTM

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/plutos_moons.html

Click to expand...

Thank you for proving the point. Perhaps the Hubble is affetced by Pluto's significations? Since you are advocating adding to a previous system and learning more in our practice, do you think it better to learn the system already there before adding to it? Or are you fine with the currently presented idea that the last planet comes first?

Konrad said:

So where is this precise line in which the Solar System ends and the rest of the galaxy begins? And who are these 'experts' who will decide where all this happens? What if I put myself forward as an 'expert' will you accpet my proposition that visible light ends with Saturn? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

This imaginary line is where the last planet orbits the Sun. For the moment it is Pluto. In future there may be another that is discovered and (in my opinion) this imaginary line will be extended to that planet's orbital path round the Sun. This is where the remainder of our Milky Way will begin. In terms of referring to the experts I spoke off earlier, I was referring to the majority of those astrologer who have published authenticated/qualified material. I would go by their majority vote wise. (Apologies I should have been more specific as to whom I was referring to). If you were to fall within this category I shall most definitely listen to what you would say and then formulate my own informed decision. After all I have to be opinionated about something LOL.

waybread said:

Here are pictures of Pluto taken from the Hubble telescope. It sure looks like light to me.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Planets/PLUTOSLD.HTM

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/plutos_moons.html

Click to expand...

LMAO it certainly does look like light

kar said:

I'd like to know the real effects of Pluto by your experience.
I can't realize the true effects of Pluto yet.

Transformation is a general fact, do you know some more specific effect?
...
Are aspects happened to you about Pluto effects?

Click to expand...

It would be nice if OP added to the discussion, just to understand if the discussion is helpful to them. Although, it is an interesting subject.

The question above, I find it hard to see how it could be answered. Some parts of the question, (highlighted above), ask for individual's own experiences with Pluto transits, yet the OP finds it hard to see the effect of Pluto in their own charts. Yet, individual's experiences of Pluto, to them, would be individual and maybe not applicable or relate-able to the OP's own life/chart. For me, at least, the journey of transformation is a very internal and very subtle one. Yet, when I process what has happened, later on, I can see the period of time where the changes took place.

I cannot discuss about the size, mass, light of objects however, it doesn't register to me as important when assessing the effect something has in my life.

tsmall said:

This whole thread got me wondering if we need to start considering all the man made satellites we have put into orbit, as well as the space station, then I remembered we need something in orbit around the Sun. So maybe if we launch a satellite into orbit around the Sun we will have to consider it astrologically.

Click to expand...

Yes a good idea indeed. Provided it doesn't melt. LOL

In theory there should only be the correct way. People are different and have their own abilities and tastes, but ANY astrological system is crafted around the practitioners abilities and tastes. So, a correct way with a few structured variations would be ideal.

But there is a completely other way, and that is the way of sparking so much CONFUSION with so many alternating theories that NO ONE can figure out anything.

This is happening right now WITH EVERY SINGLE thought or theory, political stance, or viewpoint, ASTROLOGICAL OR OTHERWISE. And people need to put an end towards this sort of separation and learn to work together rather than fighting and defending egos. (I don't deny that I can be swept into it to. no one is perfect.)

Btw I should warn the ones that like to follow the yellow brick road that one of my past times was called a game of mafia. In this game you are quick to realize that all mafia try to act town, but some do it better than others.

I want to say one more thing about my stance and that is that though I believe traditionalists should not be denied the chance to talk about outer planets, I realize that some of those traditionalists will not keep an open mind and refuse to accept their errors. Thus, JupiterASC, unless the one that I was talking to earlier comes out, our agreement is breeched due to your unwillingness to talk to me in an open manner.

The_Saturnian said:

LMAO it certainly does look like light

Click to expand...

CONSIDER THAT THE IMAGE IS ONE TAKEN USING A FAR FROM ORDINARY CAMERA

The_Saturnian said:

Yes this too is a valid point of view as well . However, I've been of the opinion that if it is orbiting our Solar System it affects us. My view is that since the Sun's gravitational field is so strong that it is able to hold Pluto (in it's eccentric orbital path) at such a distance, than surely it must affect us. Some people (like myself) class these celestial bodies to be celestial beings whose power affects us no matter how far they maybe away from us.

Without contesting further, I do have but one question - Pluto cannot receive the 'collection of light'. How do we know this, since man has not set foot on Pluto as of yet? It's just an assumption based on scientific doctrines and the fact that our satellites are having to resort to infra red technology to see Pluto because light allegedly does not reach it's surface from the Sun. Still you do have a valid point of view too .

Click to expand...

Hi The_Saturnian - Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are clearly seen in night skies because they reflect the light of the sun to the extent that they are clearly seen with the naked eye.


Dwarf planet pluto, however is too remote from the sun to reflect the light of the Sun with sufficient strength to render pluto visible.


Moon for example STRONGLY reflects light of the Sun to the extent that at night - when Sun is below the horizon and Moon is above the horizon – then Moonlight is sufficiently bright to illuminate the scene and also cast a shadow. REMOTE DWARF PLANET PLUTO CANNOT DO THAT


Dwarf planet Pluto's orbit is so remote from our brilliant Sun that any light reflected by Pluto is too weak to render it visible to observers on Earth. That's why it was only discovered very recently, in fact only 83 years ago with the aid of powerful telescopes.


Use an ordinary camera and take a picture of the night sky and you'll frequently see a bright Moon.


An ordinary camera cannot show an image of Pluto – ONLY A SPECIALLY POWERFUL CAMERA AIDED BY TELESCOPES CAN DO THAT.


When viewing night skies one never sees Pluto UNLESS aided by powerful modern telescopes.

That's because pluto's 'light' is so WEAK it's barely visible even when a powerful telescope manages to capture an image.

So dwarf planet Pluto does NOT reflect the light of the Sun sufficiently to render it's presence visible to ordinary people, who have no access to equipment costing millions if not billions of dollars - ordinary people who are observing the night skies on planet Earth using unaided vision with no artificial aids/equipment.

That's in complete contrast to Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn ALL of whom STRONGLY REFLECT the brilliant of the Sun and all of whom are therefore clearly visible in night skies WITHOUT EXPENSIVE ARTIFICIAL AIDS SUCH AS POWERFUL TELESCOPES

CAVEAT

OF COURSE THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS NOT NECESSARILY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY EVERYONE. NOT EVERYONE IS INTERESTED TO CONSIDER IT AND THAT'S FINE - WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO OUR OPINIONS

The_Saturnian said:

My sincere apologies in advance if I may sound rude and abrupt. Peace!

Click to expand...

Likewise - it's always good to exchange opinions - of course everyone is entitled to their opinion - which of course is subject to change.... no one is either 'right' or 'wrong'

Stop the attacks, to All

All,

Due to complaints, I have deleted many trolling posts from this thread which violated the rules of the AW Forum. While they contained some astrology, they became trolling comments or responses to trolling comments and so they were deleted. If you see someone trolling, please do NOT feed the trolls. Report it to the Moderator team by clicking on the "!" beside the post. If people want to repost their comments without the trolling comments, that is fine. I will continue to delete trolling comments and counter-attacks from this thread.

Anti-troll,

Tim

Re: Stop the attacks, to All

JA, aren't you grasping at straws? There is no astrological basis for concluding that the strength of a telesccope matters one bit. I presume you would also reject Neptune, discovered at a time when telescopes were "weaker" than they are today. I assume that you would reject Uranus, discovered even earlier, and which is visible to the naked eye under optimal conditions.

http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observing/Sky%20this%20Month/2011/07/See%20Uranus%20with%20naked%20eyes.aspx

Please explain in some kind of logical, operational, instrumental manner why you are so determined to pressure everyone else into a view of the solar system that is outmoded.

If a conservative traditional astrology is your thing and you don't wish to include Pluto in it, that's fine; but why should I exclude it if I find it extremely helpful? I don't include most of the asteroids, frankly, but that doesn't depend upon their naked-eye visibility.

Moreover, I am an "ordinary" person and I am content to "view" Pluto via NASA images on the Internet. Astrologers of the Renaissance, back when telescopes had been invented, didn't use their own personal telescopes do do astrology! They read an ephemeris.

Frankly, I can't see anything in the night sky without my eyeglasses. Does this mean the inner planets cast insufficient light for me to use them?

Konrad, you wrote: "Since you are advocating adding to a previous system and learning more in our practice, do you think it better to learn the system already there before adding to it? Or are you fine with the currently presented idea that the last planet comes first?"

I am not sure what you mean here. I began studying astrology in 1990, just before the surge of interest in reviving traditional astrology, and just before so much information on it was available on the Internet. Modern astrology was pretty much all I could find, other than English translations of Ptolemy and Manilius (which I did snap up.)

Modern astrology began to emerge in the late 19th century, courtesy of the theosophical movement, after traditional astrology had been virtually dead for about 150 years. Ironically, modern astrology saved something of the traditions; and then the astrologers who started the revival of traditional astrology in the 1990s generally got into it after learning modern astrology. So the critique by the trads of modern astrology is a bit like biting the hand that fed them.

Modern astrology started as essentially a slimmed-down, or streamlined version of traditional astrology. (See, for example, the books by popularizer Alan Leo.) To me, learning traditional astrology involves adding essential dignities and the dynamic view of moving planets into a system I had already learned.

I don't know what you mean by saying, "The last planet comes first." If you are a traditional astrologer, do you put Saturn "first"? Each planet has a different function in the horoscope. Some planets are inner or personal, some are outer. I would put the sun "first" if I understand you correctly-- but not to the exclusion of other chart factors.

Re: Stop the attacks, to All

BTW, on the history of astrology, I highly recommend Nicholas Campion's 2 volume set: The Dawn of Astrology (vol I) and The History of Astrology (vol. 2). Very well documented, and by someone who is both a practising astrologer and an academic.

Does Pluto really matter?

I must agree with greybeard et al. on the translation of astronomical considerations to astrology. If Pluto was even further away, but larger in size, it would have been not subjected to reclassification. But, it would still have not cast light rays due to its distance.

Modern astrologers do not take Pluto into account, traditional astrologers do. However, vis a vis the reason, I feel that the term "physics" is being slung around too loosely. Traditional astrologers do not take Pluto into account merely because it is not seen by the human eye. It has nothing to do with physics because several things in physics work even though they are not seen by the human eye.

Traditional astrology works without consideration to Pluto. Thus, there is no need to include Pluto in any discussion about traditional astrology. The fact that traditional astrology works, as a system, is enough of a justification. It is a system within a system and that is fine.

The two systems, modern and traditional, refer to different methodologies of obtaining an answer, just as might be two languages or different recording apparatus. In brain imaging, often the results yielded by PET, EEG and fMRI conflict. They all aim to scan functionality but give results about different data. EEG gives a very high temporal resolution to the 100th of a second, but poor spatial resolution. fMRI gives a high spatial resolution but poor temporal. The results they yield often provide conflicting conclusions (in experiments), but that does not invalidate one method over another. It just shows there is more to understand.

Several lines of evidence in modern astrology show that Pluto is a consideration. There is physical theory which can accommodate an account for why that is. That theory is zero point field.

I can understand that the humans are more or less egotistical creatures and feel gratification in certainty. The expression of that is found in reductionism. This is natural because the human brain cannot deal with all information at once. We use to schema to compartmentalise. But our schema do not necessarily reflect all the secrets of the universe.

I agree with Dr. Farr et al. To know two languages can be more useful than knowing just one, depending on context. "Does Pluto really matter?" It is not a question posed to NASA, an organisation. It is posed to astrologers and patrons of astrology. Whether or not it matters is fundamentally a function of personal experience.

Re: Stop the attacks, to All

waybread said:

I am not sure what you mean here. I began studying astrology in 1990, just before the surge of interest in reviving traditional astrology, and just before so much information on it was available on the Internet. Modern astrology was pretty much all I could find, other than English translations of Ptolemy and Manilius (which I did snap up.)

Click to expand...

By that I meant the chronology of the subject itself, not your own personal one. From Hellenistic times up until the Renaissance, we have an astrology which was fundamentally based upon the same principles - 7 bodies, ptolemaic aspects, 12 signs of 30 degrees - wouldn't it be wiser to learn this system and its charms first before adding bodies to it regardless of one's own personal beginning point?

Modern astrology began to emerge in the late 19th century, courtesy of the theosophical movement, after traditional astrology had been virtually dead for about 150 years. Ironically, modern astrology saved something of the traditions; and then the astrologers who started the revival of traditional astrology in the 1990s generally got into it after learning modern astrology. So the critique by the trads of modern astrology is a bit like biting the hand that fed them.

Click to expand...

Not really, but I don't really want to press the issue.

Modern astrology started as essentially a slimmed-down, or streamlined version of traditional astrology. (See, for example, the books by popularizer Alan Leo.) To me, learning traditional astrology involves adding essential dignities and the dynamic view of moving planets into a system I had already learned.

Click to expand...

Again, we will disagree here. It was perhaps streamlined but it was then added to with some different concepts but, more imortantly, it was practiced with a whole different focus and philosophy. It isn't just about losing concepts but about losing the essence of what made predictive astrology 'work'.

I don't know what you mean by saying, "The last planet comes first." If you are a traditional astrologer, do you put Saturn "first"? Each planet has a different function in the horoscope. Some planets are inner or personal, some are outer. I would put the sun "first" if I understand you correctly-- but not to the exclusion of other chart factors.

Click to expand...

This was a quote I took from a post which I can't find now, perhaps it was deleted as it was made by a 'trolling' user? I can't remeber who said it, but it was in the context of where the boundary of one's used bodies is actually placed. I was merely asking if it is something you adhere to, you have answered that, so forget about it.

Quote:
I don't know what you mean by saying, "The last planet comes first." If you are a traditional astrologer, do you put Saturn "first"? Each planet has a different function in the horoscope. Some planets are inner or personal, some are outer. I would put the sun "first" if I understand you correctly-- but not to the exclusion of other chart factors.

Konrad said:

This was a quote I took from a post which I can't find now, perhaps it was deleted as it was made by a 'trolling' user? I can't remember who said it, but it was in the context of where the boundary of one's used bodies is actually placed. I was merely asking if it is something you adhere to, you have answered that, so forget about it.

Click to expand...

Konrad that particular post was not deleted, it's page one of the thread - this is the post you were searching for

Phoenix Venus said:

I agree completely with The Saturnian. You draw the line where the solar system stops. To reiterate, The last planet comes first. Does anyone understand the multiple implications of that?

Let me put it in plain text. The inner planets are the material. The outer planets are the spiritual. Tiamat connected those two, but it shattered, turning our connection into a bunch of pieces.

Astrology is the way to bring the pieces together.

If someone denies the outer planets, they deny the spiritual, and thus.. are becoming a slave to the material.

And many people realize this and try to hide it from others.

JupiterASc, you keep mentioning the transference of light. What makes light have any importance in a horary? Can you actually back that up with astrological horary cases where light has sole and prevalent meaning to answer a question? I am waiting for you to grace us with your astrological expertise by showing your proof on this matter, because it seems to be the basis with which you go by your traditions.

Also answer me this. If light is so important, why is the sun not the only thing in a day time chart?

I am also waiting for you to show me the physics behind how the light actually transfers form one planet to another in a horary...

Click to expand...

Konrad, having studied modern astrology since 1990; and traditional astrology in the past couple of years (just enough to get my feet wet) I think modern astrology is easier for a newbie to learn. Possibly it would be "wiser" for a newbie to start with traditional astrology, sort of like the argument that you are better off learning to drive on a standard transmission. As I mentioned above, modern astrology is a lot more streamlined than traditional-- at least till you get into midpoints, harmonics, asteroids, minor aspects, and the like at a sort of 301 level.

But this begs the question of astrology's purpose. Is it to learn a system primarily for its antiquarian value? Ofr is it to help people make better sense of their lives? Is it to help them locate the missing car keys? Or to suggest whether their BF is actually a good relationship match? My concern (like Dr. Farr's) is which type of astrology works best in the hands of a given practitioner to help real people with real problems in real time.

Frankly, I think of traditional astrology today as "neo-traditional" because it is a re-invention of a once-moribund system, generally understanding people in today's (not historical) ways.

There is a logical fallacy ad antiquitatum in arguing that simply because traditional astrology worked well (and never mind its egregious bloopers) for 1800 years we should stick with it today. (Ditto for the reverse argument: modern is not necessarily better by virtue of being new.)

There was no single unified philosophy in traditional astrology! The traditional astrology that I have studied most is Hellenistic. Philosophically speaking, some of those astrologers were stoics or neo-platonists. Ptolemy promoted an Aristotelian version of science. Some of them prayed to Mercury. Some of them traced their roots to ancient Egyptian or Babylonian lore. The early Arab astrologers were devout Muslims. Lilly wrote a book called Christian Astrology.

What do you mean by "the essence of what made predictive astrology 'work'"? By predictive, do you mean horary? Forecasting from the radix chart? Many horary astrologers today use the traditional methods, yet are unafraid to add the trans-Saturnians.

Re: the quote from Phoenix Venus that JA retrieved, I don't personally accept that the trans-Saturnians planets are "spiritual" although many modern astrologers do. Jupiter traditionally rules prophecy and theology. Pluto can have a very ruthless, destructive power dynamic. Neptune can symbolize mysticism-- as well as drug addiction. Uranus can be the great liberator-- or the big disruptor.

Tiamat was a Mesopotamian goddess who represented the unbridled forces of chaos, notably the wild ocean. She also appears in the OT, in an alternative version of the creation story-- the "tehom" (chaos) slain by a very anthropomorphized God. I don't see the need to refer to her astrologically. But if Phoenix Venus does, that's fine with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat

Isaiah 51:9

Surely the astrological universe is big enough for multiple types of practice.

To me as always, if I see the evidences proven that works accurately, consistently, timely, inspirationally, applicable to day to day life, in depth to serve my purpose of seeking the truth. I will use it.

I open my mind to explore the past, the present, the future and to breakthrough.

I like to compare and observe the similarities and differences, combining and linking their relationships and how they speak the same things in different languages and tones. I am more curious on knowing they all work well. There is no need to against each other. At the same time I like to discover new surprises and move forward based on the knowledge of the past.

My research and experience has consistently demonstrated that not only does Pluto work, it causes the most inner dramatic change in a person's life. It was the most powerful of all the planets in the solar system when it was a planet and since 2006 when it was reclassified it still remains the most powerful in terms of practically predicting turning points in people's lives. Pluto's meaning in natal astrology continues to be relevant and accurate.

If you feel that Pluto does not work for you, do not use it. However, trying to claim that it has stopped exerting its effects after a simple change in astronomical labeling is an ignorant and erroneous statement.

waybread said:

Tiamat was a Mesopotamian goddess who represented the unbridled forces of chaos, notably the wild ocean. She also appears in the OT, in an alternative version of the creation story-- the "tehom" (chaos) slain by a very anthropomorphized God. I don't see the need to refer to her astrologically. But if Phoenix Venus does, that's fine with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat

Click to expand...

Some astrophysicists will admit that the placement of earth's orbit is not mathematically consistent unless another planet was there.

Phoenix Venus said:

I was not referring to the godess that inherited the name.

I was referring to the planet that was once in our solar system between mars and jupiter. The sumerians called it Tiamat.
​

Some astrophysicists will admit that the placement of earth's orbit is not mathematically consistent unless another planet was there.

Click to expand...

Interesting I just had a look. http://www.tokenrock.com/explain-Tiamat-Planetary-Theory-144.html

Phoenix Venus, if you believe this sort of "astronomy", that's fine. I do not, and that's OK, too.