The astrologer: uranus or pluto?
- Thread starter fullmoonlibra
- Start date
Nexus7
Well-known member
It wasn't me who drew attention to the fact that Rudhyar divorced 4 times, however. I did not need to know that about him to sense that here was something that did not feel quite ok when I first read one of his books. Without or without that knowledge, or anything else that might seem like dishing the dirt, I actually believe that nothing should blind anyone to the possible limitations of any philosophy extolled by any potential guru.
Rudhyar pioneeered many new ways to apply astrology and I never said he didn't possess genius and insight. However, as with any thinker, I would suggest that maybe we should all retain the right to look for the wheat and see the chaff in its context. Not to retain some level of critical awareness is to end up taking on hook, line and singer every single golden word uttered by the great guru, even where later on we might realise that here was some chaff that might justifiably need challenging.
The Buddha suggested that women were unable to find enlightenment within their lifetimes, simply for being women - it took long enough for nuns to challenge that one!!
Blackempress
Well-known member
I had this question on mind too as I've often wondered how much of Occult can I really MASTER. My psychic abilities are there but need some polish but previous hand on divination worked better than I ever imagined.
The good points here are Jupiter in 8th & even Pluto on the cusp of Scorpio which adds to the taboo exploration for me & an intense interest in the taboo subjects.
A comfortably goading one..love it. Dominant air, so I really have hope. Mercury dominant that's a counted blessing. Uranus aspects to Venus/Moon present don't know if those count.
But water Sun/Asc really do give a psychological edge over others.
Overall I see some happy scope for myself here.
waybread
Well-known member
Moira, I take your point.
Actually, the fields of women's studies and gender studies get far more complex than a discussion of Dane Rudhyar's take on the moon, or whether Jane Austin was/was not a feminist. [Actually, for her period and place, Austin was a path-breaker, as there were major prejudices against women writing for public consumption at all. See Elaine Showalter, A Literature of Their Own.]
If people read Dane Rudhyar and get something out of him, that's fine. I did at one point in my studies, also. Thankfully I discovered other thoughtful modern astrologers who didn't have antidiluvian ideas about femininity, like Robert Hand (his early books), Stephen Arroyo, Stephen and Jodie Forrest, and a lot of Liz Greene's books (although her earlier stuff on mothers seems straight out of Freud's playbook.)
Each of us should become a connoisseur of what we read in astrology, and part of this process is developing a clear sense of one's personal tastes. After a while, I just found Rudhyar's books to be cotton-candy for the soul, sexism aside. There are far more enlightened thinkers on spirituality than Rudhyar IMO, although they don't write on astrology so far as I know.
Surprisingly I found Avelar and Rebeiro's book, On the Heavenly Spheres-- a recent primer in traditional astrology, to be gender-neutral. Recommended for anyone interested in exploring traditional astrology.
Actually, the fields of women's studies and gender studies get far more complex than a discussion of Dane Rudhyar's take on the moon, or whether Jane Austin was/was not a feminist. [Actually, for her period and place, Austin was a path-breaker, as there were major prejudices against women writing for public consumption at all. See Elaine Showalter, A Literature of Their Own.]
If people read Dane Rudhyar and get something out of him, that's fine. I did at one point in my studies, also. Thankfully I discovered other thoughtful modern astrologers who didn't have antidiluvian ideas about femininity, like Robert Hand (his early books), Stephen Arroyo, Stephen and Jodie Forrest, and a lot of Liz Greene's books (although her earlier stuff on mothers seems straight out of Freud's playbook.)
Each of us should become a connoisseur of what we read in astrology, and part of this process is developing a clear sense of one's personal tastes. After a while, I just found Rudhyar's books to be cotton-candy for the soul, sexism aside. There are far more enlightened thinkers on spirituality than Rudhyar IMO, although they don't write on astrology so far as I know.
Surprisingly I found Avelar and Rebeiro's book, On the Heavenly Spheres-- a recent primer in traditional astrology, to be gender-neutral. Recommended for anyone interested in exploring traditional astrology.
Last edited:
Nexus; I completely agree with you, particularly with the bolded thought. I don't grant the title "guru" to anyone ever, as we're all representatives of our thoughts born out of and manifested in our humanly flawed, yet fantastically unique biographies. What is "guru" for my pathway in life, is certainly not specifically applicable to anyone else -- therefore I believe that the concept of "god" or "guru" is a highly individualized ability to listen to oneself with one's inner-soul ear.
Astrologers, all: How many of us are cautious to share that THIS is "what we do" with our talents and energy? It is part of our shared biographies that we'll meet resistance from many of our near and dear ones. Are we "wacky" because others' perceive us so ? Certainly not. We're driven to achieve all we possibly can from this amazing field of study which is only rewarded with status in few, select global locales. That some astrologers put their Saturn to the wheel in order to get their ideas out there -- beyond our intimate astrological forums -- is the harder work, and I think the most important work of all. That astrology is generally not condoned in our modern cultures is a true litmus test of how much work we have to do together as an astrological sub-culture, despite our specific interests, talents and biographical "chaf".
This is the bigger picture, in my Neptunian/Uranian/Plutonian opinion.
~ ~ ~
Uranus conjunct Venus, Mars, PoF, Vesta, Regulus 9th
Neptune trine Sun 12th to 8th
Pluto trine Saturn 10th to 2nd
Moon at Yod apex 5th conjunct Nodes, trine Mercury
Thanks for reading/listening Sandstone. 
Waybread, thanks for meeting my mind here. As a feminist Lit/Art major it was important to me to distinguish between the "act" (women publishing) and the enculturated "thoughts" presented (often traditional). What I found/find most significant is not the gender identity, but the soul identity expressed in anyone's work.
This is a larger question of intent in astrology. How do we each attempt to connect with one another in our lives ? I do agree with Michael's post regarding the necessity of a new aeon of fluid gender identity, and think that astrology is the most likely field to assist in breaking down the barriers once and for all.
As ever, Moira
Waybread, thanks for meeting my mind here. As a feminist Lit/Art major it was important to me to distinguish between the "act" (women publishing) and the enculturated "thoughts" presented (often traditional). What I found/find most significant is not the gender identity, but the soul identity expressed in anyone's work.
This is a larger question of intent in astrology. How do we each attempt to connect with one another in our lives ? I do agree with Michael's post regarding the necessity of a new aeon of fluid gender identity, and think that astrology is the most likely field to assist in breaking down the barriers once and for all.
As ever, Moira
waybread
Well-known member
Hi Moira-- For sure we need to consider dead authors as creatures of their times. How could they be anything else? If some were ahead of their time or expressed thoughts that resonate with us today, then it's a gift to us. If some of them wrote in ways that seem prejudiced within the context of, say, the early-mid 20th century, then I think they are fair game.
I've been studying astrology for over 20 years, which makes me a definite newbie compared to some of the village elders here who have been studying astrology for far longer than that. Speaking from my personal experience, I think we go through stages in our astrological study-- as we should. By analogy, the courses that a student struggles with in first year seem easy and perhaps simplistic compared to 4th year studies-- or beyond.
Right now I see a lot of structural problems with astrology. We still don't know why it should work, and I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation beyond divination. But then, how does divination work? A lot of astrology is simply based upon a "deposit of faith" going back to ancient times. Yet historians of ancient astrology have pretty well demonstrated that much of this "deposit" was based upon religious or philosophical ideals, not on astrologers sitting down with hundreds of clients and coming up with delineations based upon consultations or trial-and-error. (See Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology. Vettius Valens, Anthologies might be the one exception.)
Because astrology has been an "orphaned" discipline for a lot of its history, it doesn't have a lot of critical standards for evaluating its truth claims, so far as I can tell, other than astrologers' subjective positions and experiences.
In terms of soul-centred astrology, I personally think that a chart can indicate a the soul's goals in incarnation, and notably its challenges and assets. I just don't think this works the way Rudhyar suggested.
For example, I just pulled off my shelf Rudhyar's The Astrology of Personality and more or less randomly turned to his material on the houses, ecapsulated on pp. 181-185 He gives both traditional and modern meanings of the houses, but then they include stuff like, 10th house: "The mother in whom racial consciousness and the national soul are concretized." 11th house: "The Reformer's deams and efforts." 12th house: "The limiting power of the race's level of consciousness; and the rising above it by individual efforts of will occultly exerted...." Rudhyar goes on to give the houses a decidedly evolutionary flavour, where the houses indicate increasingly levels of consciousness. The goal is "the perfected human 'Individual.'"
Well, this is heady stuff. It isn't hard to get on Rudhyar's wavelength of the perfectability of Man [sic]. I understand where Rudhyar is coming from in terms of ramping-up conventional house meanings (10th is the mother, 11th is hopes and wishes for the future, &c.) I think by "race" he means the "human race", thank heaven.
But this material is so unanchored from everyday human reality; and there is no evidence that Rudhyar is correct-- unless someone chooses to create a personal spiritual discipline out of his material. Which would be fine, but if people truly want to achieve Christ-consciousness (or its equivalent in some other belief system) astrology is pretty much beside the point. Because religions and life philosophies tend to give a one-size-fits-all prescription.
Most people who want their charts read wonder if they should quit their job, why their kids are troubled, or whether their BF is Mr. Right.
It is easy to dismiss such people as too materialistic and insufficiently cerebral, but I have started to think we live on the earth plane for a good reason: and it is precisely to live on the earth plane. We'll get to the ether soon enough.
(And BTW, my chart is mostly air and fire.)
I've been studying astrology for over 20 years, which makes me a definite newbie compared to some of the village elders here who have been studying astrology for far longer than that. Speaking from my personal experience, I think we go through stages in our astrological study-- as we should. By analogy, the courses that a student struggles with in first year seem easy and perhaps simplistic compared to 4th year studies-- or beyond.
Right now I see a lot of structural problems with astrology. We still don't know why it should work, and I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation beyond divination. But then, how does divination work? A lot of astrology is simply based upon a "deposit of faith" going back to ancient times. Yet historians of ancient astrology have pretty well demonstrated that much of this "deposit" was based upon religious or philosophical ideals, not on astrologers sitting down with hundreds of clients and coming up with delineations based upon consultations or trial-and-error. (See Tamsyn Barton, Ancient Astrology. Vettius Valens, Anthologies might be the one exception.)
Because astrology has been an "orphaned" discipline for a lot of its history, it doesn't have a lot of critical standards for evaluating its truth claims, so far as I can tell, other than astrologers' subjective positions and experiences.
In terms of soul-centred astrology, I personally think that a chart can indicate a the soul's goals in incarnation, and notably its challenges and assets. I just don't think this works the way Rudhyar suggested.
For example, I just pulled off my shelf Rudhyar's The Astrology of Personality and more or less randomly turned to his material on the houses, ecapsulated on pp. 181-185 He gives both traditional and modern meanings of the houses, but then they include stuff like, 10th house: "The mother in whom racial consciousness and the national soul are concretized." 11th house: "The Reformer's deams and efforts." 12th house: "The limiting power of the race's level of consciousness; and the rising above it by individual efforts of will occultly exerted...." Rudhyar goes on to give the houses a decidedly evolutionary flavour, where the houses indicate increasingly levels of consciousness. The goal is "the perfected human 'Individual.'"
Well, this is heady stuff. It isn't hard to get on Rudhyar's wavelength of the perfectability of Man [sic]. I understand where Rudhyar is coming from in terms of ramping-up conventional house meanings (10th is the mother, 11th is hopes and wishes for the future, &c.) I think by "race" he means the "human race", thank heaven.
But this material is so unanchored from everyday human reality; and there is no evidence that Rudhyar is correct-- unless someone chooses to create a personal spiritual discipline out of his material. Which would be fine, but if people truly want to achieve Christ-consciousness (or its equivalent in some other belief system) astrology is pretty much beside the point. Because religions and life philosophies tend to give a one-size-fits-all prescription.
Most people who want their charts read wonder if they should quit their job, why their kids are troubled, or whether their BF is Mr. Right.
It is easy to dismiss such people as too materialistic and insufficiently cerebral, but I have started to think we live on the earth plane for a good reason: and it is precisely to live on the earth plane. We'll get to the ether soon enough.
(And BTW, my chart is mostly air and fire.)
Michael R
Active member
The evidence may only be visible when one has applied more than periphery observation or research.
The fact that this type of material IS unanchored from every day reality IS the problem.I do agree we live on the Earth plane for a good reason.Ones that have only recently come home to be 'owned' by me.I lived in the imagination of what it (life) could/should & maybe use to be.I wanted out of here & away from the limitations i had observed & experienced here.Now i see the relevance of being here and the journey with it's diverse potentiality.But only if it follows the cyclic progression/evolution,
whatever you want to call it,that is required to move forward for the benefit of all,which is a higher call to manifest,the collective,than the limiting Tribal or Individualistic consciousness.To improve on LIFE HERE dont you agree we could apply some Etheric/Esoteric principles to assist in this journey?To Spiritualize Matter as some have described it and with which i tend to agree.As astrology will soon be accepted as the "Mother of all Science".is it not a good medium/tool for improving on the human condition,and how do we do that if it is not inclusive of the "Ethereal"?
Religions & life philosophies absolutely can be used & abused & projected to be a one-size-fits-all in a limited application.Thats why we question these old paradigms and seek to create new ones.But we need new tools in conjunction with the old ones to create with.
It is not a sin to be materialistic as it is not a sin,nor does it detract from the mundane to want to draw upon a greater power/awareness,or want to create one if it doesn't exist, to improve on the human journey.I don't think much of the old structures but accept them as being part of the journey,but now their time is done and a new science of the "Heart & Mind" is manifesting.Maybe i'm mis-reading your words,but this is how i interpret them at this point.
So for those few clients that ask for a deeper understanding of their life problems to make a connection to their everyday life,or ask Esoteric questions,what do you draw on or how do you approach that?
Frisiangal
Well-known member
Waybread wrote:
Couldn't the same be said of any author of religious/philosophical principles, of which astrology is one?
How many times is a particular (favourite?) astrological author recommended as reading material towards futher understanding? Wouldn't the 'personal spiritual discipline 'of the individual see the fire/air type astrologers drawn towards experience of the spiritual-theoretical ideas, the Earth types (like myself) drawn towards the practical proof of/in such abstraction of ideas, and the water types the deep(est) feelings of emotional value and empathy in such abstract ideas?
Regarding Rudhyar, I have his 'Astrology and Psychology'(transl. Dutch) and 'The Astrological Houses' (Engl.). Both are filled with references coloured in marking ink that offer(ed) understanding to my logical working mind. Yet this is the same author you find so 'unhelpful'.
Only now?????
Michael R wrote:
I can't speak for other signs, obviously, but this is something my
recognises in its application towards astrology. 'Materialistic' doesn't necessarily mean only physical security. It can also mean 'awareness through the tangibility of matter'. It's the journey that must travel, even if other signs view life from their own different perspectives.
Maybe the 11*
(Sandstone), 
Q MC-
(Kannon) astrologer parts of me
needed the
(Claire) to re-view, re-new, and finally change the direction of the 
mind?
Example: As I write this the snow crystals are slowly falling from the trees. As the Sun's rays catches them it's as if millions of diamands are falling to Earth. Almost ethereal and definitely moving in its beauty.
Perhaps 'reading astrology' is similar.
Couldn't the same be said of any author of religious/philosophical principles, of which astrology is one?
How many times is a particular (favourite?) astrological author recommended as reading material towards futher understanding? Wouldn't the 'personal spiritual discipline 'of the individual see the fire/air type astrologers drawn towards experience of the spiritual-theoretical ideas, the Earth types (like myself) drawn towards the practical proof of/in such abstraction of ideas, and the water types the deep(est) feelings of emotional value and empathy in such abstract ideas?
Regarding Rudhyar, I have his 'Astrology and Psychology'(transl. Dutch) and 'The Astrological Houses' (Engl.). Both are filled with references coloured in marking ink that offer(ed) understanding to my logical working mind. Yet this is the same author you find so 'unhelpful'.
Only now?????
Michael R wrote:
I can't speak for other signs, obviously, but this is something my
recognises in its application towards astrology. 'Materialistic' doesn't necessarily mean only physical security. It can also mean 'awareness through the tangibility of matter'. It's the journey that must travel, even if other signs view life from their own different perspectives.Maybe the 11*
(Sandstone), Q MC-(Kannon) astrologer parts of meneeded the
(Claire) to re-view, re-new, and finally change the direction of the mind?Example: As I write this the snow crystals are slowly falling from the trees. As the Sun's rays catches them it's as if millions of diamands are falling to Earth. Almost ethereal and definitely moving in its beauty.
Perhaps 'reading astrology' is similar.
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
Michael, I am an amateur, so I don't have "clients" but I have read hundreds of charts for people on this and on another astrology forum.
I think some people have a burning need to know why they are on the planet, or what is their purpose in life on an individual level. With most people, I am not sure such questions ever come up. Life purpose is given generically by their religion, their society, their family relationships, or even by a culture of consumerism.
Basically I think astrology does answer fundamental questions about one's individual life-meaning, though not necessarily in the way people pose them.
I think that purpose in a horoscope is indicated as:
(a) where our growth lies,
(b) what we are on the planet to learn and to teach,
(c) who we must be or become in order to be true to ourselves, and
(d) for some people (not all) one's sense of a calling or vocation.
(a) North Node
(b) pre-natal lunar and solar eclipses (this from Jan Spiller and Karen McCoy, Spiritual Astrology.) These eclipses are close to the lunar nodes but can be in different signs and houses. According to these authors, the pre-natal lunar eclipse indicates what you are on the planet to learn; and the pre-natal solar eclipse, what you are on the planet to teach.
(c) sun by sign and house; to a lesser extent the ascendant and moon
(d) MC, 10th house, and location of the ruler of the MC. Note that many people go through life without a burning ambition to be a doctor, or to alleviate poverty. A woman with the ruler of her MC in the 5th, for example, might most authentically pursue a hobby or be a devoted mother. However, if it is not strongly placed or is afflicted, she might not realize much satisfaction from her 5th house.
I believe that souls choose the timing, location, and circumstances of their births in order to maximize their potential for growth in key areas. They come to this challenge with specific assets and barriers to success. If achieving their goal were a real give-away, they wouldn't learn anything or become stronger.
The chart as a whole indicates the nature of these challenges, and the person's tool kit and obstacles. A well-aspected Mercury in Gemini, for example, is probably an asset and a good tool in the person's kit. Harsh aspects to the person's sun from outer planets might indicate that one of her barriers will be addressing her low self-esteem, for example.
This thesis raises troubling questions about why a soul would voluntarily incarnate as a disabled child, a war victim, or schizophrenic. Such people have the potential by example to teach compassion in others-- a quality that Planet Earth could use in greater quantity. If there is such a thing as God's plan, it is just possible that some souls voluntarily take on difficult, painful incarnations in order to further human progress. If there is such a thing as reincarnation, it is just possible that souls who take on victim identities do so either because they were perpetrators in a past life and choose to experience first-hand the kind of impact they had on their victims in order to foster their sense of compassion; or in order to manifest some triumph of the human spirit in the face of severe adversity.
Anyway, that is my take on esoteric astrology. Frisiangal, you can see how it differs from Rudhyar's. I am not saying that nobody should read or derive benefit from reading his books.
In terms of why I am only now getting my head around the concept of life on the "earth plane" as being precisely the point of living ordinary lives; you probably know the expression:
"Too soon old, and too late smart."
Our Western astrological tradition clearly (I emphasize that term, clearly) arose from the hermetic syncretism of Alexandria (deriving from neo-Platonic and neo-Pythagorean roots) But it became alienated from the hermetic world view, and cast adrift, first in the maze of Aristotelianism, then, with a movement into a "scientific based" outlook. No wonder that Western astrology seems to have no underlying world view ("philosophy")!
That didn't happen with either Chinese astrology or Vedic astrology; the various approaches to Chinese astrology always have been connected with an underlying Taoist outlook (modified somewhat by neo-Confucianism) And jyotish really cannot be understood outside of its fundamental Vedic world outlook, no matter how much one might try to cut it off from its Hindu heritage and try to make it-like much Western astrology-secular and "scientific"...
That didn't happen with either Chinese astrology or Vedic astrology; the various approaches to Chinese astrology always have been connected with an underlying Taoist outlook (modified somewhat by neo-Confucianism) And jyotish really cannot be understood outside of its fundamental Vedic world outlook, no matter how much one might try to cut it off from its Hindu heritage and try to make it-like much Western astrology-secular and "scientific"...
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Nevertheless, Western Scientists do not accept astrology as a Science but instead consider astrology to be a form of divination and unscientific