Is Pluto an astrological planet?
- Thread starter JUPITERASC
- Start date
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Arguing keeps the tree-sap flowing between the roots and branches,
which is necessary to the life of the tree.
No harm in having fun with the process, or in being serious about it./
Siriusly
david starling
Well-known member
roots require ground
Which is why ground-rules are important.
david starling
Well-known member
I don't know for certain, "visible planets" Jupiter Ascending, but it looks to me ("Age of Aquarius" david starling) that you're implying there's more to consider than what meets the eye!
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Quite
???????????????????????
Quite
erudite member dr. farr has not posted for some time
due to health issues
however dr. farr has said often that
the different estimates for when the vernal equinox point (0 Aries) precessed, give different estimates for the beginning of the Age of Aquarius
-C.C. Zain gave 1889 as beginning (thus the Age of Aquarius would have already started)
-S. L. Magregor Mathers ("Golden Dawn" Mathers) gave 2050 as the beginning
-Cheiro (famous 19th/early 20th century occultist, astrologer and palmist) also gave 2050 as the beginning
-Hipparchus ayanamsa hypothesis (Gould et al) gives 2040 as the start
-Vedic Lahiri ayanmsa would say the begiining will be in 2475
-Fagan/Bradley (Western sidereal) ayanmsa gives 2444 as the beginning
Finally, the almost unknown Alcyone/Krittika estimate
(starts the sidereal count from 149 BC),
says that the Age of Aquarius already is upon us, having begun in March of 2000 AD...
that you're implying
there's more to consider
than what meets the eye!
david starling
Well-known member
Your post of the iceberg-like question-mark illustrates that lack of readily-apparent visibility doesn't necessarily preclude unseen yet influential existence. That runs counter to your often repeated assertion that only the readily-apparent Planets, those that can be seen and identified as "wanderers" using only naked-eye vision, can possibly be considered to have Astrological import of any kind.
Regarding the Astrological Ages, I've been attempting to explain (apparently unsuccessfully) that knowing the location of the ayanamsa and its rate of movement relative to the constellations is not the real issue regarding when the Siderealists believe the Aquarian Age began or will begin. But, that's not what this Thread's about.
Regarding the Astrological Ages, I've been attempting to explain (apparently unsuccessfully) that knowing the location of the ayanamsa and its rate of movement relative to the constellations is not the real issue regarding when the Siderealists believe the Aquarian Age began or will begin. But, that's not what this Thread's about.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
The issue is
that a dwarf planet
noticed circa 1930
was erroneously trumpeted as being a planet
and was for that reason
erroneaously deemed also an astrological planet
Quite
david starling
Well-known member
The issue is
that a dwarf planet
noticed circa 1930
was erroneously trumpeted as being a planet
and was for that reason
erroneaously deemed also an astrological planet
Quite
No. The only reasons Traditional Astrologers reject Pluto as an Astrologically influencial Planet is that it's invisible using naked-eye vision, and that its inclusion would disrupt the the Essential Dignities. Otherwise, it would have been included (along with
&
) BEFORE Astronomers declassified it as an ASTRONOMICALLY defined "planet", in the modern sense. As for Modern Astrologers, they have no Astrological necessity to declassify it as an ASTROLOGICALLY defined planet, since naked-eye recognition and the Essential Dignities aren't part of the Modern schemata. Neither is the Astronomers' assertion that, in order to be classified as a non-dwarf planet, a small planet like Pluto must have "cleared its own orbit".
Last edited:
AppLeo
Well-known member
No. The only reasons Traditional Astrologers reject Pluto as an Astrologically influencial Planet is that it's invisible using naked-eye vision, and that its inclusion would disrupt the the Essential Dignities. Otherwise, it would have been included (along with
in order to be classified as a non-dwarf planet, a small planet like Pluto must have "cleared its own orbit".
So you do believe in Uranus and Neptune O:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
No. The only reasons Traditional Astrologers reject Pluto as an Astrologically influencial Planet
is that it's invisible using naked-eye vision, and that its inclusion would disrupt the the Essential Dignities.
Otherwise, it would have been included (along with
Astronomers declassified it as an ASTRONOMICALLY defined "planet".
As for Modern Astrologers, they have no Astrological necessity to declassify it as an ASTROLOGICALLY
defined planet, since naked-eye recognition and the Essential Dignities aren't part of the Modern schemata.
Neither is the Astronomers' assertion that,
in order to be classified as a non-dwarf planet,
a small planet like Pluto must have "cleared its own orbit".
prior to being noticed 1930
a without-artificial-aids-to-vision-dwarf-planet was unseen
then
was erroneously
trumpeted as a planet by astronomers
and for that reason
modern astrologers erroneously assumed that
the dwarf planet was also an astrological planet
david starling
Well-known member
Assuming you mean do I use their lines of Celestial Longitude as important Chart indicators, yes, along with Pluto's--when I'm up in the branches.
david starling
Well-known member
prior to being noticed 1930
a without-artificial-aids-to-vision-dwarf-planet was unseen
then
was erroneously
trumpeted as a planet by astronomers
and for that reason
modern astrologers erroneously assumed that
the dwarf planet was also an astrological planet
Why should a Modern Astrologer care whether or not Pluto has "cleared its own orbit", or that Astronomers have reclassified it as a "dwarf" planet? Small or not, it's still an "Astrological Planet" in the Modern Astrological sense. Nothing erroneous about it in the context of Modern Astrology.
Last edited:
AppLeo
Well-known member
Assuming you mean do I use their lines of Celestial Longitude as important Chart indicators, yes, along with Pluto's--when I'm up in the branches.
Celestial Longitude?
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
a dwarf planet was noticed in 1930 by Astronomers
and only THEN
was suddenly "in the context of Modern Astrology"
because of
its branding
as an ASTRONOMICAL planet
since then
that dwarf planet has been unamasked
as NOT a planet
SIMILARLY with the first four asteroids
so many more were discovered that
it was clear they were not planets
as a consequence
"astrological information" about them
began to taper off
to where now they are basically a niche subject.
five recognized dwarf planets are
Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea.
Scientists believe there may be dozens
or even more than 100 dwarf planets awaiting discovery
david starling
Well-known member
a dwarf planet was noticed in 1930 by Astronomers
and only THEN
was suddenly "in the context of Modern Astrology"
because of
its branding
as an ASTRONOMICAL planet
since then
that dwarf planet has been unamasked
as NOT a planet
Too late! Like it or not, Pluto has already proven itself as an important Chart-factor to most Modern Astrologers. Ceres, on the other hand, although discovered much earlier than Pluto, not so much.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
a dwarf planet was noticed in 1930 by Astronomers
and only THEN
was suddenly "in the context of Modern Astrology"
because of
its branding
as an ASTRONOMICAL planet
since then
that dwarf planet has been unamasked
as NOT a planet
SIMILARLY with the first four asteroids
so many more were discovered that
it was clear they were not planets
as a consequence
"astrological information" about them
began to taper off
to where now they are basically a niche subject.
five recognized dwarf planets are
Ceres, Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea.
Scientists believe there may be dozens
or even more than 100 dwarf planets awaiting discovery
Too late!
Like it or not, Pluto has already proven itself as an important Chart-factor to most Modern Astrologers.
Ceres, on the other hand, although discovered much earlier than Pluto, not so much.
david starling
Well-known member
As far as most Modern Astrologers are concerned, Pluto has "Star quality", whereas Ceres has been considered as only a "bit player". Very likely accounted for by Aspects in their Natal-charts, but with exact times of birth currently unknown, no way to compare them.
david starling
Well-known member
When you're a small Planet, you gotta have heart!
