What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deductions

Arena

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

The way I understand it, Spica is also just an approximate for something else. I tried a lot of ayanamsas in the past but eventually went back to Lahiri. I've never tried an ayanamsa that far off though.

If we go with exact Regulus as exact 0 Leo, then for the year 2000, it would be 29degr49min47sec according to my software.

Yes, it would be aproximate. BUT we can not always just put Regulus at 0 Leo, because that would be the same method ... as I understand it we need to use the galactic center or galactic equator as the fixed point, since the fixed stars like Regulus and Spice are moving a little bit through the centuries.

This could mean that Regulus is not always at exact 0 degr Leo, but around that area though.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

These Sidereal Ages are about spirituality. The Tropical Ages are the mundane influence on human civilization. Not simple, but logically and analytically understandable. When the spiritual, Sidereal Aquarian Age begins is entirely a matter of opinion. When the mundane, Tropical Aquarian Age (the one that matters regarding our materialistic existence) begins is a question of whether to use the Mean-point of Earth's perihelion as the anchor location, or the True-point. I use both--the Mean-point Age of Aquarius begins in 2149. The True-point Age begins in 2033. The former is when the Age sweeps over the entire world. The True-point Age will affect only those who are ready for it, which is about ones Chart. Incidently, I couldn't find anything in Edgar Cayce's OWN WORDS containing the actual term "Age of Aquarius" or "Aquarian Age". Found any such quotations? Not someone putting words into his mouth, but an actual quote?
 
Last edited:

Arena

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

Well, actually there is absolutely nothing to credit these statements that you just made.

The ages do not change as a matter of opinion. They change according to the right measurement. And we do see signs that the Aquarian age has already started with the speed of technical advancement that we've had that are so blatantly Aquarian, we found electricity, that changed a whole lot, we made cars and airplanes, we went to space, we invented the internet and computers. That simply fits with the sidereal ayanamsa of around 30 degr earlier than tropical - hence Cayce being right about that... OR it could fit with the Fagan-Bradley or Lahiri ayanamsa and around there ... but the measurement of the ages being by heliacal rising (what is seen in the sky BEFORE the Sun rises at that point).

So most of the astrological world may actually be "in the dark" as they are not using the right ayanamsa.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

Well, actually there is absolutely nothing to credit these statements that you just made.

The ages do not change as a matter of opinion. They change according to the right measurement. And we do see signs that the Aquarian age has already started with the speed of technical advancement that we've had that are so blatantly Aquarian, we found electricity, that changed a whole lot, we made cars and airplanes, we went to space, we invented the internet and computers. That simply fits with the sidereal ayanamsa of around 30 degr earlier than tropical - hence Cayce being right about that... OR it could fit with the Fagan-Bradley or Lahiri ayanamsa and around there ... but the measurement of the ages being by heliacal rising (what is seen in the sky BEFORE the Sun rises at that point).

So most of the astrological world may actually be "in the dark" as they are not using the right ayanamsa.
Sounds like you're still in kindergarten when it comes to the Ages. Sort of like the Ages version of Sun-sign Astrology. Are you at least aware of the one-Sign overlap that all who truly study the Ages know about? (Age of Pisces foreground, Age of Aries background, for example). What about the polarities? Age of Pisces/Virgo for example? Cyril Fagan saw the overlap so clearly he declared the Age of Aries looked like the Age of Taurus, and the Age of Pisces like the Age of Aries; which he said meant that the Age of Aquarius would be like an Age of Pisces. Tropically, the Cardinal-sign Ages culminate towards the end, so modern technology is the result of last part of the Age of Capricorn. (Tropical Ages have Direct-motion, Sidereal Ages, as you know, have Retrograde-motion.)
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

Arena, what makes you think there's only one "correct" Ayanamsa? Looks to me like a matter of opinion--many opinions.
 

Arena

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

The ages change as the vernal equinox moves through the zodiac signs.

What makes me say that there must be only one correct ayanamsa. Well, because that must be the case. It is as you say in the astrological practise today just a matter of opinion. But all opinions are not equal, and in order for us to get things right, we must find the one and correct ayanamsa.
It could be the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa, which is said to be what the Babylonians used. It could be the Golden Dawn ayanamsa of the Galactic center as the fixed point for the reference of all times.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

The ages change as the vernal equinox moves through the zodiac signs.

What makes me say that there must be only one correct ayanamsa. Well, because that must be the case. It is as you say in the astrological practise today just a matter of opinion. But all opinions are not equal, and in order for us to get things right, we must find the one and correct ayanamsa.
It could be the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa, which is said to be what the Babylonians used. It could be the Golden Dawn ayanamsa of the Galactic center as the fixed point for the reference of all times.

I respect your point of view because so many asserting that the Age of Aquarius has already begun don't seem to realize the entire Zodiacal setting is affected--even a few degrees variation in the location of the Ayanamsa changes the Sidereal-chart significantly. On the other hand, if they're actually Astrologers and not just "new agers" and they can work with the Chart based on where they've placed the V.E.P., I wouldn't say they're "wrong"--just out of the mainstream, which has the Ayanamsa set whereby the Sidereal Aquarian Age won't begin until around 2400. By the way, correlative to the factual, evidence-based historical time-line, the Sidereal Ages don't show results until about the halfway point. No reason why the Sidereal Aquarian Age should be any different. In which case, modern technology is NOT evidence of the Sidereal AofA!
 

Arena

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

which has the Ayanamsa set whereby the Sidereal Aquarian Age won't begin until around 2400

Well, this is the problem I am pointing out here.
Some have the aynamsa set to that point. But the Golden Dawn astrologers, from the Magi's, seem to have an ayanamsa of around 5 degrees earlier, therefore the VEP being exactly at the cusp between Pisces and Aquarius.

Another possibility is to look at what has also been pointed out to me that the ancients of Babylonia and Persia did use the heliacal rising to measure the ages. That would mean looking at the sky BEFORE the sun comes up, or at sunset, showing us Aquarius and Leo respectively.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

Well, this is the problem I am pointing out here.
Some have the aynamsa set to that point. But the Golden Dawn astrologers, from the Magi's, seem to have an ayanamsa of around 5 degrees earlier, therefore the VEP being exactly at the cusp between Pisces and Aquarius.

Another possibility is to look at what has also been pointed out to me that the ancients of Babylonia and Persia did use the heliacal rising to measure the ages. That would mean looking at the sky BEFORE the sun comes up, or at sunset, showing us Aquarius and Leo respectively.

Check out Terry MacKinnell's version of the Sidereal Ages. He's using Heliacal for the Ages, which gives a 15th Century start to the Aquarian Age. But he acknowledges the Overlap, and considers the true nature of the AofA to be suppressed by the Age of Pisces (which in his method, began in the 8th Century B.C., held back by Age of Aries until the 5th Century A.D.) until the halfway mark in the 25th Century. His Ayanamsa is still fairly "standard", but his Helical Age-indicator is 15 degrees away from it.
 

piercethevale

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

Better yet, leave the twelve Signs out of your astrological "tool box". You really don't need them to provide an effective natal chart analysis or make accurate predictions as to trends for mundane use...given an accurate national natal chart.

I use the Signs mostly for a source of amusement nowadays, but little more.

That doesn't mean that I neglect the study of them in regards to this controversy, though.
 

Arena

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

I do indeed sometimes find it useful to leave the signs out of the equation and focus on the planets. But when it comes to f.ex. judging a planet's exaltation or fall, I need to use the correct zodiac for this.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

I do indeed sometimes find it useful to leave the signs out of the equation and focus on the planets. But when it comes to f.ex. judging a planet's exaltation or fall, I need to use the correct zodiac for this.
What's the criteria for a correct zodiac? Set your parameters. 12 equal Signs matching up with 12 unequal constellations requires some sort of method. Or faith in some ancient method, when presumably greater wisdom prevailed. What are your requirements for it to be the "correct" first point of Sidereal Aries? Once you know that, the rest should follow.
 

piercethevale

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

I don't subscribe to the current system of popularity regarding the exaltation and fall of the planets.
It fails to address the planet that lies between Mars and Jupiter that was shattered.
I find that, just like the Signs, such isn't needed for an effective horoscope analysis of the natal chart or predicting trends for the mundane.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

I don't subscribe to the current system of popularity regarding the exaltation and fall of the planets.
It fails to address the planet that lies between Mars and Jupiter that was shattered.
I find that, just like the Signs, such isn't needed for an effective horoscope analysis of the natal chart or predicting trends for the mundane.

The new scientific theory is that the Planets formed gradually, by collecting orbital debris, growing larger as they accumulated more and more. And that the gravitational effect of Jupiter expelled the matter that would have gone into the building of a Planet between Mars and Jupiter BEFORE it could form. If it had been a Planet that shattered, the reasoning goes, the amount of debris (Ceres is the largest piece) in the aftermath would have been FAR greater.
Just out of curiosity, are you eliminating the Signs altogether? And, are the outer Planets, including Pluto, Astrologically important?
 
Last edited:

Arena

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

What's the criteria for a correct zodiac? Set your parameters. 12 equal Signs matching up with 12 unequal constellations requires some sort of method. Or faith in some ancient method, when presumably greater wisdom prevailed. What are your requirements for it to be the "correct" first point of Sidereal Aries? Once you know that, the rest should follow.

Yes I do think that we are on our way to the truth by using the sidereal zodiac. It counts for Earth's precession and is a much closer match to the stars than is the tropical.

Actually a point about the exaltations, Edgar Cayce did use them - it seems to have been one of his most important points on astrology. To find the most exalted planet in one's chart.
 

Phoenix Venus

Well-known member
Yes I do think that we are on our way to the truth by using the sidereal zodiac. It counts for Earth's precession and is a much closer match to the stars than is the tropical.

Actually a point about the exaltations, Edgar Cayce did use them - it seems to have been one of his most important points on astrology. To find the most exalted planet in one's chart.

Where did Cayce say that a planets importance should be measured by its corresponding exalted sign?

Cayce talked about the importance of planets in terms of where their soul travelled in past lives and which ones are involved in their karmic path...

From reading 1895-1

"
Hence as these records or interpretations are given, it is the desire to give the entity a premise, and ideal, that it may answer to that search from within as to how to make this experience more worth while in this particular sojourn.


13.Then as we find, the experiences of the entity in the earth become an influence just as the environs in any one experience, just as it is true that what ye think ye become, - just as what ye consume for the physical produces such experience in thy physical and mental life as related to the ideals, whether known or still latent.


14.Also we find that the experiences of the entity in the interims of planetary sojourns between the earthly manifestations become the innate mental urges, that may or may not at times be a part of the day dreaming, or the though and meditation of the inmost self.


15.Hence we find astrological aspects and influence in the experience, but rather because of the entity's sojourn in the environ than because of a certain star, constellation or even zodiacal sign being in such and such a position at the time of birth.


16.Know that man - as has been expressed - was given dominion over all, and in the understanding of same may use all of the laws as pertaining to same for his benefit.


17.In the application of same as a benefit, - if it is for self-indulgence or self-expression alone, it loses its own individuality in the personality of that sought or desired; and thus the very knowledge may be used as a stumbling-stone. But if each experience is as a manifestation to the glory of a creative or heavenly force, or that which is continual thus the judgements being drawn from an ideal that is spiritual in its concept, then there is the greater growth, the greater harmony - for there becomes an at-onement with the influences about same."
 

piercethevale

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

The new scientific theory is that the Planets formed gradually, by collecting orbital debris, growing larger as they accumulated more and more. And that the gravitational effect of Jupiter expelled the matter that would have gone into the building of a Planet between Mars and Jupiter BEFORE it could form. If it had been a Planet that shattered, the reasoning goes, the amount of debris (Ceres is the largest piece) in the aftermath would have been FAR greater.
Just out of curiosity, are you eliminating the Signs altogether? And, are the outer Planets, including Pluto, Astrologically important?

I pay observation to the "Traditional" attributes of the signs... I'm able to pick people out based on their Sun Sign (Tropical) at better than a 50% rate and with some Signs, I'm nearly infallible. (Pisces, Virgo, Taurus and Scorpio).
The only explanation I can come up with is that these descriptive attributes were , for the most part, formulated in the last one thousand years.

The outer Planets, and most definitely Pluto, are significantly important.

Read my thread "The Birth Chart of Jesus?", although it is in the process of being revised. Better yet read my book, "A Template For The Time. The Astrological Birth Chart of Jesus" Hidden Mysteries, TGS publishing, Frankston, Texas... although it too is currently being re-written and a revised edition will hopefully be available before this Winter. Phoenix Venus is currently assisting me with the process...May God Bless her.
My name, as for which the book is published under, is David Mastry.

There is an ancient legend that states that the planet that existed between Mars and Jupiter was shattered by the angel Lucifer in order to confuse mankinds' psyche. I find that to be plausible.
 
Last edited:

piercethevale

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

Where did Cayce say that a planets importance should be measured by its corresponding exalted sign?

Cayce talked about the importance of planets in terms of where their soul travelled in past lives and which ones are involved in their karmic path...

From reading 1895-1

"
Hence as these records or interpretations are given, it is the desire to give the entity a premise, and ideal, that it may answer to that search from within as to how to make this experience more worth while in this particular sojourn.


13.Then as we find, the experiences of the entity in the earth become an influence just as the environs in any one experience, just as it is true that what ye think ye become, - just as what ye consume for the physical produces such experience in thy physical and mental life as related to the ideals, whether known or still latent.


14.Also we find that the experiences of the entity in the interims of planetary sojourns between the earthly manifestations become the innate mental urges, that may or may not at times be a part of the day dreaming, or the though and meditation of the inmost self.


15.Hence we find astrological aspects and influence in the experience, but rather because of the entity's sojourn in the environ than because of a certain star, constellation or even zodiacal sign being in such and such a position at the time of birth.


16.Know that man - as has been expressed - was given dominion over all, and in the understanding of same may use all of the laws as pertaining to same for his benefit.


17.In the application of same as a benefit, - if it is for self-indulgence or self-expression alone, it loses its own individuality in the personality of that sought or desired; and thus the very knowledge may be used as a stumbling-stone. But if each experience is as a manifestation to the glory of a creative or heavenly force, or that which is continual thus the judgements being drawn from an ideal that is spiritual in its concept, then there is the greater growth, the greater harmony - for there becomes an at-onement with the influences about same."

I understand what Arena means, but she seems to have gotten the reading a bit out of context and may have used the term "exalted" by her own choice
As to what Cayce meant by the most influential Planet in ones natal chart cannot be determined by any known technique of "Traditional Astrology".
 

Arena

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

I understand what Arena means, but she seems to have gotten the reading a bit out of context and may have used the term "exalted" by her own choice
As to what Cayce meant by the most influential Planet in ones natal chart cannot be determined by any known technique of "Traditional Astrology".

No I did not get the readings out of context. I actually read about exaltation in one of his readings where he said that only a few of the planets actually were of influence on each person (probably meaning that only the planets on angles are of importance) In that context he spoke about that we had to find which planet/or which of the luminaries was the closest to it's exaltation because that was of importance.
But I can't find this reading now, I will search.

An interesting article about Cayce on astrology is here:
http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aapersian astrology5.htm
 
Last edited:

piercethevale

Well-known member
Re: What Edgar Cayce said about Planets affecting us...and some observations & deduct

No I did not get the readings out of context. I actually read about exaltation in one of his readings where he said that only a few of the planets actually were of influence on each person (probably meaning that only the planets on angles are of importance) In that context he spoke about that we had to find which planet/or which of the luminaries was the closest to it's exaltation because that was of importance.
But I can't find this reading now, I will search.

An interesting article about Cayce on astrology is here:
http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aapersian astrology5.htm
I can't say that I definitely remember his use of the word "Exaltation" but I don't doubt the possibility that you may be in fact correct.
I do, however, caution taking the belief that He meant the exact same process used by current traditional methods of determination as to what He was specifically referring to.
I seem to recall that what He was referring to is the planet closest to the M.C. in a natal chart...but I'm not saying I'm accurate about that.
 
Top