What is the Soul in astrology?

I have never been able to figure out just what the Soul is, what it's made of and its dynamic in space.

Most astrologers seem to agree that the Moon's Nodes have something to do with past lives. I don't understand this reasoning however any more than I understand where the Moon came from (and no one has a clear explanation of that either).

My concern with reincarnation is really two-fold, first I don't know what exactly this Soul that reincarnates is made of, and second the whole issue of reincarnation started with Annie Besant and Helena Blavatsky in the 19th Century when they brought the idea of reicarnation from India and founded the Theosophical Society on its premise.
However, the Hindus, who operate under the ancient laws of Manu, do not see reincarnation as an individual dynamic but rather a group one. You die in your caste and progress to the next, hopefully. Not so in our Western perspective, where each individual dies and lives again, a concept which I believe is flawed.

It's a difficult concept because if the individual Soul does indeed exist within us it must be made of something that differentiates it from our physical body, and so by definition it must have shape and form. Nobody I know of has yet described that shape and form, and we are left with a rather hazy definition of the Soul as some abstract thing, a word, that really doesn't describe anything any more than the term "spiritual" actually describes anything.

While a great many people are comforted at the thought that they will somehow persist beyond physical death there is no evidence, philisophical or material, that this actually true. In fact, the contrary postulate applies, so that grim as it may sound at death the psychological construct we call our personality simply disappears forever.

deleted post.

Wayne, A book called *soul centred astrology* by Alan Oken may be of interest to you...do you know it? lillyjgc (and welcome to the forum.)

lillyjgc said:

Wayne, A book called *soul centred astrology* by Alan Oken may be of interest to you...do you know it? lillyjgc (and welcome to the forum.)

Click to expand...

I'll 2nd that !!

If i said .....

1>are you talking about the "natal" soul or the "progressed" ?? [smile]

2>"as above ...so below" ; can apply to many things ; even your interpretations


.... would you find it provocative ??? [grin]


LLT(leo_lunar_tick)

In traditional western astrology, Mercury and the Moon are used to answer questions about the Soul, and some of the Lots may be useful for this study; I have used Spirit. Classical philosophy thought of the soul as that which animates the body. It is seen as consciousness, personality, and what the person does on their own initiative. Pythagorus and Plato also wrote of reincarnation of the soul. Learning was seen as remembering things from previous lives.

The use of the Nodes of the Moon, Rahu and Ketu, definitely comes from India. They are used to delineate karma and are concidered malefic, but there are many complications that may make them benefic, and I have not time to explain that here. Ancient western astrology only used the nodes to predict eclipses and borrowed their use in natal delineation during the Middle Ages. In the western system, the ascending node is benefic like Jupiter, and the descending node is malefic like Saturn.

I did read Alan Oken's book and I've read others on the concept of reincarnation, which is certainly an important concept in Astrology.

However, even so brilliant an astrologer as C E O Carter (who wrote a book entitled "The Zodiac and the Soul") did not hold to any mystical concepts. He wrote, " ... all discussion of the soul and its problems is made difficult by the fact that it is beyond space and time, and yet, from our point of view exists within these catagories".

It seems to me that if there is a part of us that persists at death, our Soul, then that Soul must somehow be distinct from the physical body, otherwise it simply dies. It therefore must be made of some discrete substance that differentiates it from the physical body, and therefore should be measurable, at least philosophically. And while certainly some things do exist that cannot be seen, the psyche, the personality, even character I suppose, but surely these can all exist without the need for a concept of the Soul, as psychological constructs that necessarily develop as a result of the need human-beings have to interact socially.

It also of course begs the question as to whether animals have individual Souls (as opposed to Blavatsky's concept of the Oversoul) and if so should we be eating them? They certainly have personalities so why not Souls? But then the question becomes whether insects have Souls. I do not wish to be flippant because this is a serious subject, but surely these are serious questions.

Finally, I am certainly impressed with some accounts of Near Death Experiences where people have actually watched their own operations from outside their bodies and later could quote the surgeons. I do not have any explanation for this phenomenon. However, we know only a little of how the mind works, and only about 10 percent of the brain has so far been mapped, which allows a lot of latitude in the human experience.

I also believe that some human being have "extra sensory" experiences, and that what is commonly called psychism is for some people a fact of everyday experience.

Interesting thread
I think it is a very human concept to think that the sould must be seen in order to be something real. I think that the sould is a field of energy. I think that people can sense other people by the energy that our souls eminate. I do believe in the supernatural, so I am not sure how to incorporate how a ghost or spirit can appear to others as actual human structures...interesting thought.

smilingsteph said:

Interesting thread
I think it is a very human concept to think that the sould must be seen in order to be something real. I think that the sould is a field of energy. I think that people can sense other people by the energy that our souls eminate. I do believe in the supernatural, so I am not sure how to incorporate how a ghost or spirit can appear to others as actual human structures...interesting thought.

Click to expand...

smilingsteph what you say is reasonable if you believe that the soul exists in the first place. My position is that I just don't know one way or the other - perhaps I'm just cursed with logical positivistism.

While the soul may indeed be a field of energy, to my mind something must sustain the source of that energy and that something must be related to the physical body in order for it to be individualized. Otherwise there would be no difference in souls, and as you point out we sense the differences in others.

I to firmly believe in the supernatural, or rather I believe that there are abilities and experiences that cannot be explained by simply the five senses we know of.

I started this thread because I have had a problem with the concept of the soul and with individual reincarnation for years. I certainly don't claim they do not exist, and once again to quote the great astrologer C E O Carter, "... it cannot be held that our nativities come to us fortuitously and without us inviting them" ("The Astrological Aspects").

Undoubtedly there is something going on, I just don't know what it is.

hi Wayne ,

can i suggest some Non-astrological reading .............

Carlos Castaneda ... all of them [smile]

it might give you a whole new take ............


i like steph's "field of energy" ... and in keeping with that .......

.... we are bundles of awareness , encased within a bubble of perception , and we move our attention within this bubble to points that "align" varying bundles of awareness ....

...when our attention is on the mundane , we see the mundane ..... but when we shift(alter) our attention to energy fields then that is what you will percieve .....


Your query regarding "soul" is analgous with "mind" ........

e.g.we can explain the firing of neurons in the brains as the effects of the mind selecting and processing of "thoughts" ... but ... we are at a loss to explain where thought is created......

To me it seems that "thoughts" originate in "awareness at large"(the ether , if you like) ..... then our bubbles "perceive" them , our "attention" "selects" the correct "bundle of awareness" and .... presto .... we think !!!


One , therefore , must be cautious with the selection of thought ....... and not limit thought to the realm of "objective reality" ...... in the same sense the "soul"(as i understand your meaning) .... falls outside what is "reasonable and objective"

so Wayne , just to "stick to the topic" ..... What is the Soul in Astrology.

the whole chart represents the whole person .... (at the psychological level)

the part that would represent spiritual development, would to me, be an "octave" above ( not a harmonic) in the way a Natal chart can be used as a predictive tool and , by "raising an octave" it becomes a psychological profile .... within each "octave" are the "9 harmonic" charts.

maybe there are other octaves [wink]

by definition it (the soul) must have shape and form.

Click to expand...

Why should it?

Shape and form, like time and space, are conditions of physical existence. The soul is not physical.

Each and everyone of us is unique...as each natal chart is unique...we are somewhat trapped in this physical shape (body) and our souls are what resides within us all, it is what makes us cry, laugh, smile, anger; everything encapsulated into one entitiy. When we die I believe our soul is released from the confines of the body and is set free. There is no definition of where the energy starts or where it begins. It is what it is. In life we bump into other people and say excuse me and then move about on our way. I think that our soul, as energetic as it is, goes along moving through the energies of others in a blissful paradise of radiating warmth.
I was watching a show on TV the other day and it said that each and every one of us has a unique magnetic field that can be read and distinguished.
I really do think it is such a human concept to think that there should be a shape or a form associated with the soul. Like time, it is human to accept that time is a way to judge the here and now existance. Time may not even be of any importance to us when we are released from our bodies. We have a shape and form now, that is the fight we deal with, that our bodies hold us captive and we struggle to let some of our soul out on a daily basis to integrate with others, by talking, sharing ideas, and so forth.

Wayne

I agree with you 100%
i think the whole chart is a soul of the person it is not only 1 aspest 1 planet 1 house. *whoever said that GOOD CATCH*
Steph, I think it was you. Field arounda person? sure. it is called Aura or something like that. There is a book that teaches you how to calculate aura.
Who brought up reincarnation. I absolutely believe in reincarnation. The only depressing thing is there is no way of proving it 100%. regression is one way but there has to be a scientific way. How is sould born? How or when it dies? too many questions.. too difficult to comprehend.

i am beginingto think if anyone to put a soul .. shouldnt it be 12th house issue? i am just guessing here.. i have no data to back this up

Til

I read Carlos Castaneda 30 years ago. The use of LSD or any drugs does nothing to increase awareness, where you see everything and understand nothing. Drugs are a waste of time and substance anyway.

Really the issue of the soul comes down to faith, or at least believing in a construct that is structured on belief of some kind. There appear to be no consensus as to what the soul really is. But it must be separate from the body, logically, or else it dies with the body. So what is that separation?

It's a difficult issue indeed.

wayne penner said:

I read Carlos Castaneda 30 years ago. The use of LSD or any drugs does nothing to increase awareness, where you see everything and understand nothing. Drugs are a waste of time and substance anyway.

Click to expand...

30yrs ago i had read the 1st 5 books also ....... i grew up , so did Carlos ... there were 9 books in total published before he died in 1997.

It's true you cannot increase awareness , ... but .... , you can perceive differently than others at any given point in time if you choose to.

Nothing is a waste in this world ...... your "faith" in your opinions is unfounded ....

For The Record ..... if you think Carlos' Work's were about "drugs" then you missed the first line in the forward of the very first book..... [smile]

Really the issue of the soul comes down to faith, or at least believing in a construct that is structured on belief of some kind. There appear to be no consensus as to what the soul really is. But it must be separate from the body, logically, or else it dies with the body. So what is that separation?

It's a difficult issue indeed.

Click to expand...

It is only difficult because your expectations are that ;... "it's logical and finite" ................ and , like most objective realists we see today ...... they have forgotten the pre-existing paradox in existentialism that underpins it .( I gather from your posts you are "an existentialist")

This is best seen in Rand's "existence exists" ..... of course it does!!! . I proffer that "sneeps sneep", "mothers mother" etc etc.....

It's a cheap shortcut to knowledge ..... the question is , for me , what is existence ??



Consider that ..... Cognisance is Entropy



The underpinning mindset with Randians is the same as any Religious Fundamentalist ..... my God vs Your God.

"we're like sheep without a shepherd .... so we wander 'round this desert .... and end up following the wrong gods home"


To limit yourself to "objective reality" is to be less than complete ..... it's like consigning yourself to "Flatland"; .... when something enters from the 3rd dimension it appears as if by magic (etymological pun intended).....

YOU are your soul ..... all of you ...... not just "the part that defies objective reality"

Astro wise ..... the soul is an "Octave" ...... (there are 12 semi-tones in an Octave !! hmmmm )

!3*_!un@_!nc*9n!t* said:

30yrs ago i had read the 1st 5 books also ....... i grew up , so did Carlos ... there were 9 books in total published before he died in 1997.

It's true you cannot increase awareness , ... but .... , you can perceive differently than others at any given point in time if you choose to.

Nothing is a waste in this world ...... your "faith" in your opinions is unfounded ....

For The Record ..... if you think Carlos' Work's were about "drugs" then you missed the first line in the forward of the very first book..... [smile]




It is only difficult because your expectations are that ;... "it's logical and finite" ................ and , like most objective realists we see today ...... they have forgotten the pre-existing paradox in existentialism that underpins it .( I gather from your posts you are "an existentialist")

This is best seen in Rand's "existence exists" ..... of course it does!!! . I proffer that "sneeps sneep", "mothers mother" etc etc.....

It's a cheap shortcut to knowledge ..... the question is , for me , what is existence ??



Consider that ..... Cognisance is Entropy



The underpinning mindset with Randians is the same as any Religious Fundamentalist ..... my God vs Your God.

"we're like sheep without a shepherd .... so we wander 'round this desert .... and end up following the wrong gods home"


To limit yourself to "objective reality" is to be less than complete ..... it's like consigning yourself to "Flatland"; .... when something enters from the 3rd dimension it appears as if by magic (etymological pun intended).....

YOU are your soul ..... all of you ...... not just "the part that defies objective reality"

Astro wise ..... the soul is an "Octave" ...... (there are 12 semi-tones in an Octave !! hmmmm )

Click to expand...

I am a logical positivist as a thinker. I do not consider the world to be essentially hostile, as do the Existentialists. Sartre, who invented the term, later regretted his concept by the way.

My issue with those who believe in the existence of the soul is that they use tautological arguments, so that the definition is based upon a supposed assumption that the soul exists in the first place. I am neutral on the issue; I don't believe or disbelieve, but if the soul does exist it must be a rational construct, otherwise the soul exists solely as an abstract concept.

I am a logical positivist as a thinker. I do not consider the world to be essentially hostile, as do the Existentialists. Sartre, who invented the term, later regretted his concept by the way.

Click to expand...

Great !! .... agreed ...... and ....agreed , & i'm sorry if appear "passionate" .... ( i have transits !! (sic))

My issue with those who believe in the existence of the soul is that they use tautological arguments, so that the definition is based upon a supposed assumption that the soul exists in the first place.

Click to expand...

I empathise and concur that my experience is similar ( not sure i'd use the term "issue" ... but i get your drift)

I am neutral on the issue; I don't believe or disbelieve, but if the soul does exist it must be a rational construct, otherwise the soul exists solely as an abstract concept.

Click to expand...

seems like you answered your own question here .... it really doesn't matter if the soul is "rational construct" or an "abstract concept" does it ?? If you are acknowledging it , then it exists ...... maybe it's not "objectively real" and cannot be agreed upon because it transcends the etymology available to us at this time ..... google up "semiotics" , "floating reference points" .... it's worth it ....


May i refer back to the analogy i used earlier regarding "mind" , suggest that "many folk" also define soul by it's effects (and responses?) (and yes , "many folk" presuppose "some" of the effects are connected by way of logical fallacy. )

as for "rational construct" ...... in the context of this conversation !!! ROFLMAO ...... tautology indeed !!! actually perhaps it's oxymoronic ?? ..... at the least , it's a fine line we are creating here between rational construct , objective reality , abstract concept ......

would it be more pragmatic and fruitful to ask ...............

how "the abstract" interacts through "non-objective reality" and how manus integrates and assimilates these "rational constructs" into a physical form (reality) ??

(replace how with why after first coffee break)


Cognizance is Entropy !!! (this here ...again ....especially 4 you )

hi Wayne ..... afterthought

Have you read about "the moment of astrology"-Cornelius

....(another analogy ...ughhh)

In terms of chart interpretations and "the soul in astrology" , it seems that the difference between a "year ahead reading" , a "character analysis" , "horary" is the "intent" of the astrologer ...

then...

... let's say(assume) intent is the equivalent of "positive mental attitudes" , "affirmations" , "bad attitudes" and "depressions" for e.g.


The analogy would be of exciting an atom with energy until it's electron went to the next orbit ( i.e. a "change of state") , in some cases the "change" causes the atom to emit a photon ....... we see light ...... and the behaviour and properties of the atom is altered ..... it's still the same atom as far as "objective reality" is concerned.


The "change of state" doesn't destroy the atom ..... it transcends it (after a fashion) .... in the same way an astrologer doesn't lose the faculty for Mundane astro when they perform Psychological or Synastric astro analyses ......

........ with all this in mind ....... (oops , there's another of those pesky double entendre)

Hope i didn't bore you.

!3*_!un@_!nc*9n!t* said:

Great !! .... agreed ...... and ....agreed , & i'm sorry if appear "passionate" .... ( i have transits !! (sic))



I empathise and concur that my experience is similar ( not sure i'd use the term "issue" ... but i get your drift)


seems like you answered your own question here .... it really doesn't matter if the soul is "rational construct" or an "abstract concept" does it ?? If you are acknowledging it , then it exists ...... maybe it's not "objectively real" and cannot be agreed upon because it transcends the etymology available to us at this time ..... google up "semiotics" , "floating reference points" .... it's worth it ....


May i refer back to the analogy i used earlier regarding "mind" , suggest that "many folk" also define soul by it's effects (and responses?) (and yes , "many folk" presuppose "some" of the effects are connected by way of logical fallacy. )

as for "rational construct" ...... in the context of this conversation !!! ROFLMAO ...... tautology indeed !!! actually perhaps it's oxymoronic ?? ..... at the least , it's a fine line we are creating here between rational construct , objective reality , abstract concept ......

would it be more pragmatic and fruitful to ask ...............

how "the abstract" interacts through "non-objective reality" and how manus integrates and assimilates these "rational constructs" into a physical form (reality) ??

(replace how with why after first coffee break)


Cognizance is Entropy !!! (this here ...again ....especially 4 you )

Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between rational and abstract. I can believe in that which can be proven logically, using formal logic, but abstract is that which is conceived but which does not have an essential concrete foundation in logic. The two concepts are really quite different.

That which can be proven can be proven, and that is not a redundancy in mathematics as you know. Indeed it is sublime for those of us still trying to figure out quantum theory, because that which can be proven can't be proven, or at least not precisely, which is the huge problem (for me anyway). Which is why I'm probably disturbed and carry a balloon around and a smalll stuffed koala bear doll.

As I have stated I am neutral on the issue of the soul. But I have yet to see a construct that actually describes the discrete separation of the soul from the physical body, and nearly all who discuss the soul assume some etherial matter without actually describing its separation from the physical body.

In other words, what is the soul made of, and how is separate from the physical body?

In other words, what is the soul made of, and how is separate from the physical body?

Click to expand...

for me ??

how "the abstract" interacts through "non-objective reality" and how manus integrates and assimilates these "rational constructs" into a physical form (reality) ??

Click to expand...

I think this statement describes it's impact .... it's as rational a construct as others i've heard.(dripping with double entendre ... LOL)

I know it is not a direct answer ....... but your question seems to be couched in deliberate minefields ..... and the goalposts have developed a wobble

To attempt to locate (and prove the existence of) "the soul" in "physical reality" and measure and assess it methods of interaction within "a being" .... seems , on the face of it , to be quixotic to me.

That which can be proven can be proven, and that is not a redundancy in mathematics as you know

Click to expand...

are you pulling my chain ??? [laugh]

This is exactly the sort of Randian "shortcut to knowledge" i spoke of earlier ...... the question , for me , is ... What is "proof" ??

Proof , to me , is the provenance of ones personally controlled folly ...... inasmuch ......

Proof is a relative term that requires etymology , rules , semantics ........ all of them - limitations (and that's before we even get to ...."objectivity/subjectivity" and "reality/illusion").

"Proof" is like "the Bible" ..... it's a product of the agreements(and arguments) of Men ( and women too Loretta !! )

here's a pic for the Koala and the Balloon ..... it's a pic my daughter took of me ...... do you think we were having fun ??