Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

muchacho said:

Well, since you want to make it all about combustion in order to back your theory, please explain Cazimi to me using your light theory.

Click to expand...

Cazimi has nothing to do with visibility, and I don't think I ever said it did. Besides cazimi has nothing to do with the rays of the Sun, given the cazimi state doesn't occur when the planet enters obscurity. It merely refers to a state of power within the conjunction with the Sun, supposedly, attributed by the fact that the planet becomes one with the Sun.

But again, it has nothing to do with visibility, and no one has ever stated it does so. The planet is weak because its obscure (the pragraph you quoted says this too). But when it conjoins the Sun, in the technique, it becomes one with it, thus regains stregth. But not because it gains visibility or anything, its just the tight conjunction with the Sun that grants the benefits.

Its like a planet in the 12th house trined by a diginified Jupiter. The planet is accidentally weak, but gains accidental strength by influence of another planet. Still, the benefit from Jupiter does not remove the debility of the 12th house.

You are trying to make a rhetorical statement to ask me a question, instead of answering the apparent bias of combustion within your statement that vedic astrology is unified yet you do not believe in the light argument.

If you do not use combustion of light theory in your practice that is fine. But saying that "it doesn't exist", is simply going against the majority of vedic and traditional astrologers who, whether they are aware or not, use light base techniques.

Dirius said:

Not sure if you are aware, but the outer planets are excluded from vedic astrology. Most vedic astrologers reject their use. In fact, they pretty much agree with us western traditionals on the subject at a near universal level. The very book muchacho called the "bible" of vedic astrology doesn't include the outers mate.

Problem is that you seem to be taking the lead of others who practice a very personal form of astrology that may inter-mixes a range of techniques from every branch that exists. They simply call it "vedic" because it aligns better.

I'm not sure if muchacho uses the outers, maybe he does not, so I do not include him on my statement above. I think he may only be against the "light" argument.

So I think you are betting on the wrong horse mate.

Click to expand...

That's right, the outers are not included. But for a different reason. The reason here is astrological ages, not visible light.

Do I use the outers? Yes and no. Based on my experience, the outers do have an influence on basic character and physiology. For that purpose, I would use them if there's conjunctions with ASC, Moon or Sun. If not, then not. So it's similar to how one would use fixed stars. They are useless, however, for predictions because they don't work with the predictive techniques I use.

Michael said:

Houlding uses the outers when doing natal chart delineation. John Frawley is a follower of John Lilly. He can't get any more traditional than that.

BTW, both are prominent traditional astrologers.

Click to expand...

Yes, Houlding seems to use the outers in some way.

"The 12th house has a general association with paranoia, phobias, scandals or worry attached to the skeletons of the past. I have often noted trasits to natal Uranus in this house denote a time when guilty secrets and hidden vices are exposed."

Deborah Houlding - The Houses: Temples of the Sky, page 90

Click to expand...

Dirius said:

Cazimi has nothing to do with visibility, and I don't think I ever said it did. Besides cazimi has nothing to do with the rays of the Sun, given the cazimi state doesn't occur when the planet enters obscurity. It merely refers to a state of power within the conjunction with the Sun, supposedly, attributed by the fact that the planet becomes one with the Sun.

But again, it has nothing to do with visibility, and no one has ever stated it does so. The planet is weak because its obscure (the pragraph you quoted says this too). But when it conjoins the Sun, in the technique, it becomes one with it, thus regains stregth. But not because it gains visibility or anything, its just the tight conjunction with the Sun that grants the benefits.

Its like a planet in the 12th house trined by a diginified Jupiter. The planet is accidentally weak, but gains accidental strength by influence of another planet. Still, the benefit from Jupiter does not remove the debility of the 12th house.

You are trying to make a rhetorical statement to ask me a question, instead of answering the apparent bias of combustion within your statement that vedic astrology is unified yet you do not believe in the light argument.

If you do not use combustion of light theory in your practice that is fine. But saying that "it doesn't exist", is simply going against the majority of vedic and traditional astrologers who, whether they are aware or not, use light base techniques.

Click to expand...

The point is that Cazimi is the final nail into your light theory coffin. According to your light theory, the closer a planet to the Sun, the less visible and therefore the weaker. In case of Cazimi, that should be the weakest possible position for a planet according to that logic. But instead of further losing strength, the planet actually gains strength and even is considered exceptionally strong. And so there goes your light theory right out the window.

This is similar to Oddity saying that we don't use the outers because we can't see them with the naked eye but then he concedes that one of the outers is actually visible to the naked eye. And there went the naked eye theory out the window as well.

Get your logic straight, guys.

It's fine to have opinions on how things work and why they work as they do. But voicing those opinions as facts or ultimate truths is not. If you are just speculating or guessing, then say so right from the start and not 20 pages later. That will make these discussions less contentious and no one will feel compelled to take the ad hominem route every time his/her theory bites the dust.

Merry Christmas!

muchacho said:

The point is that Cazimi is the final nail into your light theory coffin. According to your light theory, the closer a planet to the Sun, the less visible and therefore the weaker. In case of Cazimi, that should be the weakest possible situation according to that logic. But instead of further losing strength, the planet actually gains strength and even is considered exceptionally strong. And so there goes your light theory right out the window.

This is similar to Oddity saying that we don't use the outers because we can't see them with the naked eye but then he concedes that one of the outers is actually visible to the naked eye. And there went the naked eye theory out the window as well.

Get your logic straight, guys.

Click to expand...

Ah.. that is such a naive statement. Cazimi has nothing to do with the visibility of the planet, but it does not remove the fact that the planet is obscured by the Sun (and thus has ligh at another point). It is not a technique that adds or removes light from it.

The analogy of cazimi is that of the astrologer and the king:

The astrologer(Mercury), a man with no land, title, or political power in the kingdom (No Light/No power), through its close relationship(Conjunction) to the King(Sun), exerts a huge degree of power over the kingdom.

Again, like I said before, its like a planet in the 12th house trined by Jupiter. The planet looses power because of its accidental position, but still gains a positive influence from Jupiter.

In any case, your statement still revolves around an attempt to try to dissmis the concept, instead of giving recognition that Vedic astrologers do use light base arguments.

muchacho said:

That's right, the outers are not included. But for a different reason. The reason here is astrological ages, not visible light.

Do I use the outers? Yes and no. Based on my experience, the outers do have an influence on basic character and physiology. For that purpose, I would use them if there's conjunctions with ASC, Moon or Sun. If not, then not. So it's similar to how one would use fixed stars. They are useless, however, for predictions because they don't work with the predictive techniques I use.

Click to expand...

So you use outer planets, and you don't believe in light base techniques.

And you call yourself a vedic astrologer, while going against it and calling vedic a "unified field".

I'm sorry, but your testimony certainly lacks credibility. For what you have stated so far, your practice seems more like a modern/vedic personal style hybrid, rather than vedic astrology, given you seem to against vedic teachings in certain important and critical concepts, while seemingly including modern delusions that are forcefully inserted into ancient practice.

And also, you claim the outers are rejected because of "age" concepts, but you still include them. I do however would requiere an opinion from an actual vedic to confirm this. What does the bible of vedic astrology have to say about the outers muchacho?

Dirius said:

So you use outer planets, and you don't believe in light base techniques.

And you call yourself a vedic astrologer, while going against it and calling vedic a "unified field".

I'm sorry, but your testimony certainly lacks credibility. For what you have stated so far, your practice seems more like a modern/vedic personal style hybrid, rather than vedic astrology, given you seem to against vedic teachings in certain important and critical concepts, while seemingly including modern delusions that are forcefully inserted into ancient practice.

And also, you claim the outers are rejected because of "age" concepts, but you still include them. I do however would requiere an opinion from an actual vedic to confirm this. What does the bible of vedic astrology have to say about the outers muchacho?

Click to expand...

Dirius, I genuinely like your input. But your ad hominems are really getting old. You are also not paying attention to what has been said. Instead you tend to go off on tangents and engage in straw man debates, debates where you usually claim victory, but debates that have nothing to do with anyone's original point.

I specifically said that I don't consider myself a vedic astrologer. What I am interested in is the original astrology, the astrology vedic, chinese, traditional western and modern western came from.

The age concept is relevant nowadays because what we call vedic astrology today is an astrology that has been specifically designed for use in the Kali Yuga age and according to Yukteswar, we are not in the Kali Yuga anymore. That's why the outers become relevant even in vedic astrology.

Also, if you want to compare different traditions, then you have to actually study them. Based on your comments about vedic and modern western, I don't get that impression. Instead what I get from you is a wild collection of (often baseless) opinions. I can only recommend studying various traditions, it will make your approach less dogmatic and less insulated.

Good luck!

muchacho said:

Dirius, I genuinely like your input. But your ad hominems are really getting old. You are also not paying attention to what has been said. Instead you tend to go off on tangents and engage in straw man debates, debates where you usually claim victory, but debates that have nothing to do with anyone's original point.

I specifically said that I don't consider myself a vedic astrologer. What I am interested in is the original astrology, the astrology vedic, chinese, traditional western and modern western came from.

The age concept is relevant nowadays because what we call vedic astrology today is an astrology that has been specifically designed for use in the Kali Yuga age and according to Yukteswar, we are not in the Kali Yuga anymore. That's why the outers become relevant even in vedic astrology.

Also, if you want to compare different traditions, then you have to actually study them. Based on your comments about vedic and modern western, I don't get that impression. Instead what I get from you is a wild collection of (often baseless) opinions. I can only recommend studying various traditions, it will make your approach less dogmatic and less insulated.

Good luck!

Click to expand...

Strawman debates? Excuse me, you bring up cazimi as somehow of a response to Vedic using light techniques, while cazimi doesn't even exist in vedic astrology. Talk about miss-directing the conversation.

Furthermore, you seem to focus cazimi because the wording would seem to imply that the meaning of a planet that "has no light" becoming strong, would make some sort of argument in favour of outer planets: it doesn't remove the fact that the planet is obscure while under the Sun, thus it requires to have light in the first place.

Finally, you have been using vedic as the source of your responses since you decided to post in the thread. You are simply washing your hands from the vedic position, because it has been shown it contradicts your entire statement, given vedic astrology does use light base techniques, at least in part.

What I merely stated is that a high number of your techniques seem to be in opposition to Vedic practice. And as you have mentioned here, you don't consider yourself a vedic astrologer. Because of that, I would prefer a quote from a vedic text, instead of passing your opinions of vedic astrology as fact.

Muchacho, let me sum up the post very briefly.

Neither you, or waybread, or Cap believe in the argument that planets and stars require visible light to exert their power. You presume instead, that the reason why traditionals and Vedics reject the outer planets, is because they do not fit into the table of dignities.

This line of thinking enables you to add the outer planets into the chart, not as sign rulers (given they don't have dignity), but as some sort of fixed stars... which means you can use them without going too much off the track from the path of ancient tradition.

However:

- Western traditional astrology does use light base techniques, proven by concepts such as combustion, Moon phases, light magnitude, etc.

- Vedic astrology does also use the same light base techniques, shown by the very same concepts that traditional astrology uses.

Thus, while it is actually true that the modern outers do not fit in the table of dignities and are already disqualified from our practice in such manner, the light issue does provide a valid reason for us to reject them completely.

Now you do not have to abide by these principles, as we have said many times, you are free to do whatever you like. But don't have the arrogance to attempt to define what we believe in, just because it disables your thorems. You don't have to believe light is important for astrology if you do not want to, but denying that ancient practice (both western and joytish) puts an emphasis on light and visibility is just misleading in order to promote your initial arguments.

Cheers.

Astrology is mead for the mind. Trads say, "keep those outers outta my goblet! They ruin the flavor".

Dirius said:

Strawman debates? Excuse me, you bring up cazimi as somehow of a response to Vedic using light techniques, while cazimi doesn't even exist in vedic astrology. Talk about miss-directing the conversation. The Cazimi effect is also known in vedic astrology.

Furthermore, you seem to focus cazimi because the wording would seem to imply that the meaning of a planet that "has no light" becoming strong, would make some sort of argument in favour of outer planets: it doesn't remove the fact that the planet is obscure while under the Sun, thus it requires to have light in the first place.

Click to expand...

The Cazimi effect is also known in vedic astrology. You brought up combustion, so it's only natural that we would have to talk about Cazimi.

And as you say, you can't explain it with your light theory. That's why I brought it up. It doesn't say anything in favor of the outers though. That would be jumping to conclusions. But it sufficiently debunks your light theory.

Dirius said:

Finally, you have been using vedic as the source of your responses since you decided to post in the thread. You are simply washing your hands from the vedic position, because it has been shown it contradicts your entire statement, given vedic astrology does use light base techniques, at least in part.

Click to expand...

That's your personal interpretation that these are light based techniques. Rawiri already gave you an alternative explanation.

Dirius said:

What I merely stated is that a high number of your techniques seem to be in opposition to Vedic practice. And as you have mentioned here, you don't consider yourself a vedic astrologer. Because of that, I would prefer a quote from a vedic text, instead of passing your opinions of vedic astrology as fact.

Click to expand...

IDK, the only thing that goes against vedic tradition is that I use the outers as additional data points if applicable. As already explained, how to deal with combusiton isn't really conclusive in vedic books. And the vedic astrology community is actually quite open to innovation, just look at the numerous Ayanamsas that are in use and KN Rao's version of Chara Dasha which has become some kind of new standard (even though it goes against tradition). Unfortunately, the traditional western astrology community seems rather closed minded in that regard.

Dirius said:

Muchacho, let me sum up the post very briefly.

Neither you, or waybread, or Cap believe in the argument that planets and stars require visible light to exert their power. You presume instead, that the reason why traditionals and Vedics reject the outer planets, is because they do not fit into the table of dignities.

This line of thinking enables you to add the outer planets into the chart, not as sign rulers (given they don't have dignity), but as some sort of fixed stars... which means you can use them without going too much off the track from the path of ancient tradition.

However:

- Western traditional astrology does use light base techniques, proven by concepts such as combustion, Moon phases, light magnitude, etc.

- Vedic astrology does also use the same light base techniques, shown by the very same concepts that traditional astrology uses.

Thus, while it is actually true that the modern outers do not fit in the table of dignities and are already disqualified from our practice in such manner, the light issue does provide a valid reason for us to reject them completely.

Now you do not have to abide by these principles, as we have said many times, you are free to do whatever you like. But don't have the arrogance to attempt to define what we believe in, just because it disables your thorems. You don't have to believe light is important for astrology if you do not want to, but denying that ancient practice (both western and joytish) puts an emphasis on light and visibility is just misleading in order to promote your initial arguments.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

That may be Waybread's line of thinking but that's not what Cap and I have been saying. Our perspective is metaphysical, not physical. You keep arguing from a physical 3D time-space-reality perspective. We argue from an entirely different perspective. That's why we keep talking past each other. And I think Cap said explicitly that he doesn't believe in the stars exerting any kind of power or that there is any causal influence at all. The stars (and planets) are reflections of something that belongs to an entirely different realm of reality.

Also, we seem to define the term ancient a bit differently. Keep in mind that my model of history is cyclical, not linear. When I refer to ancient times then what I mean is what is commonly know as the Golden Age, which according to the Great Year theory means about 10,000 years ago. When you say ancient, you probably have the old Greeks in mind. In my frame of reference, the old Greeks are a rather recent phenomenon and represent the opposite of the Golden Age (aka dark ages). So I don't see the old Greeks or even the Babylonians as having invented anything, I just see them as messengers, as having preserved something profound that has been handed down to them, something so profound their minds couldn't really grasp.

From the metaphysical perspective, the light theory is bunk right from the start. So it's not even worth mentioning. And that wasn't my main point of critique anyway. My main point was that even from a purely physical perspective, if you really think it thru, the light theory falls apart, especially if you use it in order to justify discarding the outers.

And I don't see any kind of arrogance in pointing out the holes in someone else's theory. If I would brush your theory aside as rubbish without giving any logical explanation, that would be arrogant. Or if I would be selling my opinions as facts or ultimate truths. Or if I would tell you to go back to the kids table and continue babbling there... that would be arrogance.

For myself, Astrology is a guide in how to navigate the world we're in now. I find Tropical is excellent for that purpose.

muchacho said:

The Cazimi effect is also known in vedic astrology. You brought up combustion, so it's only natural that we would have to talk about Cazimi.

Click to expand...

You see here is the example of you attempting to mislead ancient information.

Cazimi isn't part of the vedic canon at all, it is not referenced in any ancient joytish text of old, neither on the supposed "bible" of vedic astrology you quoted earlier.

Contemporary vedic astrologers may know it exists now days, but they didn't use it back day. So some modern/vedic hybrids may use it, but again, it is not part of vedic astrology.

muchacho said:

And as you say, you can't explain it with your light theory. That's why I brought it up. It doesn't say anything in favor of the outers though. That would be jumping to conclusions. But it sufficiently debunks your light theory

That's your personal interpretation that these are light based techniques. Rawiri already gave you an alternative explanation.

IDK, the only thing that goes against vedic tradition is that I use the outers as additional data points if applicable. As already explained, how to deal with combusiton isn't really conclusive in vedic books. And the vedic astrology community is actually quite open to innovation, just look at the numerous Ayanamsas that are in use and KN Rao's version of Chara Dasha which has become some kind of new standard (even though it goes against tradition). Unfortunately, the traditional western astrology community seems rather closed minded in that regard.

Click to expand...

My dear boy, I have explained it many times. It is you who is deliberately ignoring the subject, just as you ignored that combustion was part of vedic texts in the first place.

You are attempting to focus on the wording of my explanation of "lacking light" to make a silly interpretation that it means that the planet doesn't need light. You can use a synonim and call it "obscured" if you will, but given your entire argument is based on same miss-representation of whats written, I doubt you will.

Cazimi doesn't remove the light argument. The planet gains strength, through the conjunction with the Sun (because in traditional astrology, the planets blend together). As I said before in the example you are escaping: a planet in bad placement, trined by a benefic, doesn't discount the accidental debility, while still adding accidental strength. In the practice, anything the cazimi planet is doing is also being done by the Sun, through its blended condition (because they share the same degree).

And what Rawiri posted actually works in favour of the argument of light, given it shows there is a disctintion between a bright light and a dimmer one, duh!

muchacho said:

From the metaphysical perspective, the light theory is bunk right from the start. So it's not even worth mentioning. And that wasn't my main point of critique anyway. My main point was that even from a purely physical perspective, if you really think it thru, the light theory falls apart, especially if you use it in order to justify discarding the outers.

Click to expand...

The only reason you want it to fall apart is so you can use outer planets in some weird vedic/modern hybrid technique without anyone claiming a contradiction, otherwise you wouldn't even care.

The amount of light based techniques are plenty in astrology, from combustion, to Moon phases, to stars, etc. You only keep rhetoring back and forth the conversation to avoid ignoring that the same material you presented contradicts what you claim.

As I see it, Dirius is looking for grounding, in the face of a world gone chaotic. But, Muchacho is riding the wave of chaos, trying to find another world. Never the twain shall have a meeting of the minds!

muchacho said:

That's right, the outers are not included. But for a different reason. The reason here is astrological ages, not visible light.

Do I use the outers? Yes and no.

Based on my experience, the outers do have an influence on basic character and physiology.
For that purpose, I would use them if there's conjunctions with ASC, Moon or Sun.
If not, then not.
So it's similar to how one would use fixed stars.

Click to expand...

Completely different from using fixed stars
fixed stars are brilliant distant SUNS
i.e.
fixed stars are VISIBLE
the modern outers are INVISIBLE

muchacho said:

They are useless, however, for predictions
because they don't work with the predictive techniques I use.

Click to expand...

Uranus was discovered in 1781
by British astronomer Sir William Herschel
who incidentally
made the first ever planetary discovery with a telescope.
i.e.
Sir William Herschel discovered Uranus only because he was using a telescope

Fact is, Uranus is barely visible
by a KEEN naked eye
on very dark, clear nights
and so
for that reason
space.com advises all and sundry

"....When hunting Uranus
it is best to carefully study a star map
of that part of the sky where the planet is located
and then
scan that region with binoculars.
Using a small telescope with at least a 3-inch aperture
and magnification of 150-power
you should be able to resolve it into a tiny, pale-green featureless disk....."

Dirius said:

You see here is the example of you attempting to mislead ancient information.

Cazimi isn't part of the vedic canon at all, it is not referenced in any ancient joytish text of old, neither on the supposed "bible" of vedic astrology you quoted earlier.

Contemporary vedic astrologers may know it exists now days, but they didn't use it back day. So some modern/vedic hybrids may use it, but again, it is not part of vedic astrology.


My dear boy, I have explained it many times. It is you who is deliberately ignoring the subject, just as you ignored that combustion was part of vedic texts in the first place.

You are attempting to focus on the wording of my explanation of "lacking light" to make a silly interpretation that it means that the planet doesn't need light. You can use a synonim and call it "obscured" if you will, but given your entire argument is based on same miss-representation of whats written, I doubt you will.

Cazimi doesn't remove the light argument. The planet gains strength, through the conjunction with the Sun (because in traditional astrology, the planets blend together). As I said before in the example you are escaping: a planet in bad placement, trined by a benefic, doesn't discount the accidental debility, while still adding accidental strength. In the practice, anything the cazimi planet is doing is also being done by the Sun, through its blended condition (because they share the same degree).

And what Rawiri posted actually works in favour of the argument of light, given it shows there is a disctintion between a bright light and a dimmer one, duh!

Click to expand...

You are basically making my point here by introducing additional factors.

Dirius said:

The only reason you want it to fall apart is so you can use outer planets in some weird vedic/modern hybrid technique without anyone claiming a contradiction, otherwise you wouldn't even care.

The amount of light based techniques are plenty in astrology, from combustion, to Moon phases, to stars, etc. You only keep rhetoring back and forth the conversation to avoid ignoring that the same material you presented contradicts what you claim.

Click to expand...

You are not paying attention. I've said repeatedly that you won't miss the outers in vedic astrology, that you don't need them, that what has been ascribed to the outers is already covered by the nodes. And I've also said repeatedly that the vedic reasoning is primarily metaphysical, not physical.

Also, I don't see a contradiction in introducing additional methods that have been proven to show actual practical results. Ignoring them just because they are not covered in a classical text even though they work perfectly fine in practice is just silly. You see, if it wasn't for KN Rao's audacity to question the logic of the classics we would still be calculating Chara Dasha the wrong way and wonder why it doesn't give convincing results.

david starling said:

As I see it, Dirius is looking for grounding, in the face of a world gone chaotic. But, Muchacho is riding the wave of chaos, trying to find another world. Never the twain shall have a meeting of the minds!

Click to expand...

The way I see it, Dirius' approach is solely based on the 3D physical time-space-reality perspective as it is presented by our physical senses. He reduces every argument to that basic level. So in terms of ontology, his version of astrology has more in common with astronomy than anything else.