Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
muchacho said:

Thanks for making my point again, JA.
Click to expand...
On the contrary
you conveniently did not quote the entire comment
One wonders why
perhaps because the comment I posted includes the observation that
Sir William Herschel discovered Uranus only because he was using a telescope :smile:
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Michael said:

I am surprised the outers are banned in the Traditional forum, when many traditionalists are using them.
Click to expand...
Surprisingly you appear unable to comprehend that
the outers are INVISIBLE
and that
Traditional astrology uses the seven classical VISIBLE planets :smile:

by the way
one of the modern outers is not a planet but is a planetoid
 
aquarius7000

aquarius7000

Well-known member
david starling said:
Needing to devalue another's version of Astrology is an indication of lack of faith in one's own version. Same with religion.
Click to expand...
Needing to misinterpret another's well-meant statement shows the lack of self-confidence and good interpretational skills in one's own version.

You would do well to stop distorting and misconstruing what others say, and perhaps focus on the matter at hand.
 
Oddity

Oddity

Well-known member
So people who stop using the outer planets are narrow-minded? How come? And how does it affect you in any way?

Michael said:
I get it. Otherwise, I would support narrowminded traditionalists. I am surprised the outers are banned in the Traditional forum, when many traditionalists are using them.
Click to expand...
 
aquarius7000

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Oddity said:
So people who stop using the outer planets are narrow-minded? How come? And how does it affect you in any way?
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, Oddity, this thread is losing in quality fast. It has shifted from Astrology to Attacking one another. Traditionalists have always lead the way, so we need to do it again and go back to Astrology. See you else where on this forum.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
aquarius7000 said:
Odd, few quality modern make sense and now you have the proof for it. I would rather be a "slave" to tradition than to gibberish that can hardly be sensibly explained. That is why attack is their best form of defence because they don't really have substance to defend.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Both modern and traditional astrology contain "the good, the bad, and the ugly." I offered to cite some more hideous traditional cookbook delineations, if anyone were interested. (What? No takers???) Trads swear by the table of essential dignities, but does anyone know its rational basis? And then do you prefer the Egyptian or Chaldean system? But maybe turning a blind eye to such problems is more comfortable.

Another important point is that at least 1/3 of modern astrology, maybe more, is identical to traditional western astrology. So if a trad dislikes modern astrology, it would be helpful if you could give a specific who-what-when-where-why explanation, not just some sort of general aversion.

How many trads here have actually studied harmonics, minor aspects, midpoint pictures, or asteroids? It's not like modern astrology is nothing but a dumbed-down version of traditional astrology. Don't ignore modern developments.

I have some sympathy for trads who grew up on modern astrology and subsequently preferred traditional; but very little for trads who never bothered to learn modern astrology, but who nevertheless believe that it reeks based on a second-hand opinion.
 
waybread

waybread

Well-known member
Michael said:
Actually, yes, so called modern astrology is an attempt to defend obsolete systems: the tropical zodiac and the 12th houses. Because science can't explain or help, so everything is valid.

Modern astrology is justified by this anti-scientific attitude. While traditionalists are starting to reap benefits too. At least traditionalists have a culture to rely on, but moderns can say, everything we do is fine, because it's relative.

I mean it's good we go back to our roots, but if we stay there we are no better, no not even equals to out predecessors.
Click to expand...

It might be helpful to review what modern astrologers in the early 20th century were trying to accomplish. They were aware of the predictive failures of the old traditional astrology, and the highly negative character delineations it too often offered.

In keeping with the new Zeitgeist, mods were more interested in the horoscope as a tool for self-awareness; and ideally, self-improvement.

The old stoic astrologers' ideas of self-awareness were restricted to temperament based on the 4 humours (elements) and the notion that, knowing that you were a miscreant whose life reeked, you could calmly accept your inviolable fate.

What is especially modern about modern astrology is the idea that people can and do improve their lives. Consequently, the old doom-and-gloom attitude of "life is the pits, and then you die" was as much a part of what the pioneer mods. disliked about the old traditions as its methods.

I would challenge any trads to read the books of Alan Leo, probably the foremost English-language interpreter of modern astrology-- for the masses, not just for the elite cognoscenti.
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
Good point. What I am trying to say is moderns defend traditional systems like tropical astrology and 12th house systems. Even if they don't make sense.
 
M

Michael

Well-known member
aquarius7000 said:
Like I said earlier, Oddity, this thread is losing in quality fast. It has shifted from Astrology to Attacking one another. Traditionalists have always lead the way, so we need to do it again and go back to Astrology. See you else where on this forum.
Click to expand...

To lead the way, you need to break new ground. Following tradition doesn't do that.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Michael said:
I am in complete agreement with Mahler.




I get it. Otherwise, I would support narrowminded traditionalists. I am surprised the outers are banned in the Traditional forum, when many traditionalists are using them.
Click to expand...

It was a trade-off. In the Modern forum, we no longer have to be reminded by giant memes that Pluto is very small, and has been demoted by Astronomers to dwarf-planet status. :lol:
 
aquarius7000

aquarius7000

Well-known member
waybread said:
I disagree...
Click to expand...
You may disagree, and your disagreement is nothing more than just your opinion. I have seen a lot of non-sensical modern blabber about something that very feebly resembles tabloid Astrology, and nothing more than that. Just trying to hold up your vehement tone!! Oh unlike you I won’t actually go thru the chore of showing the modern hollowness here because there is soooo much of it already that litters this forum. Why waste another minute to represent it here, too.
Good day!!!

Like I was telling Odd, this thread has lost all its quality...
 
Last edited:
M

Michael

Well-known member
I hope your are right, because in the past much of traditional astrology was literally garbage. This explains the rise of the modern branch. Hopefully, the traditionals have cleaned their act since then.
 
Last edited:
M

muchacho

Well-known member
Michael said:
Medieval and Hellenistic astrologers could easily change zodiacs and add the outers without losing anything.

However, both Medieval and Hellenistic traditions developed over centuries. Pretending something is fine because it's old or assuming things can't improve is nonsense.

Returning to tradition is fine, but not staying there.


P.S. Does Dirius follow any tradition? At least Oddity has told us about his/her studies with Zoller.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, Ptolemy.
 
M

muchacho

Well-known member
Dirius said:
I said that there was a theory about light defining bright planets as benefic and dimmer planets as malefic. Rawiri referred to the naisargika bala, and as you see the list you posted is--- exactly what he said.

He said that they are related to luminosity, but then said this wasn't exactly so, and apparently the scale was done more so for the order of the planets. I can't agree or disagree on that, I don't have much knowledge of vedic, so I would let that to rawiri to explain what he meant.

But on this case you posted a list that shows exactly this that the 2 benefics are brighter than both malefics:

3. Venus (-4.89)

4. Jupiter (-2.94)

5. Mars (-2.91)

7. Saturn (-0.49)

So I guess, thanks for again posting the demise of your own argument? Because it is clear that both benefics are brighter than the malefics. So this pretty much confirms the theory.

You are also, dodging his coments on the waxing/waning Moon, a subject which I did mention earlier regarding the concept of "light" when applied to the Moon which we haven't even touch.

So let me add some more examples: in traditional Horary we use the concept of translation of light, in fact it is an important factor in Horary; so denying that traditionals don't use the concept of light, is just denying fact.

But cheers!
Click to expand...
Rawiri made some points regarding paksha bala and naisargika bala. I addressed both. You addressed only one.

Yes, I agree. You don't understand vedic astrology. FYI, the Sun is a natural malefic as are the nodes and Moon and Mercury can be malefic or benefic depending on circumstances. Which debunks your theory again. There are also functional benefics/malefics. Which means natural malefics can become functional benefics and natural benefics can become functional malefics.
 
M

muchacho

Well-known member
Dirius said:
What I said is that planets (errant stars) work based on their naked eye visibility, because there is a symbolic concept around their movement through the sky, a movement that we can see because they reflect the sunlight. Furthermore, light base techniques exist that revolve around this concept, and thus is required for a huge part of what traditional techniques are.
Click to expand...
The naked eye theory has been sufficiently debunked already. Not even Oddity believes it anymore.

Dirius said:
I never said you have to abide by this rules. But somehow it does seem to bother you that we (traditionals) do have this rules, and I've already stated why.

If you read the thread carefully you will realise it wasn't us who started this topic to trash modern astrology or the outers, but someone else did in order to question why traditionals don't use them.
Click to expand...
This is a good example for what I call straw man discussions. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
 
M

muchacho

Well-known member
Dirius said:
Honey, you are the one making the claim they work, thus you have to prove they work, not me disprove it.

In any case, what would I have to disprove? that they do not work for sign rulership? or that they do not work as faint stars? you moderns can't even agree on what they can or can't do. :w00t::w00t::w00t:
Click to expand...

You would have to prove that they don't have any influence on character or physiology. Which means you would have to actually practice natal astrology. The best method would probably be to look at charts with outers close to the ASC. In the RMC section you should find a lot of examples.
 
M

muchacho

Well-known member
Dirius said:
Muchacho, I will make it very simple.

You don't have to accept the concept of light if you don't like it. You do not have to believe in it.

But trying to deny that it is an important concept for us traditionals is just foolish. The ample amount of traditionals texts that use the concept of light is just too vast to ignore. If you practice traditional astrology, by definition you are abiding to these concepts. If you practice something else, then perhaps not.

It is possible that the problem with this thread is that you think that we started this topic to trash modern astrologers. Traditionals did not start this topic, they simply asked us why we don't use them, and we gave an answer. You don't like the reason why we don't use them? well sorry, but that is your problem.
Click to expand...
Well, seems we've come full circle now that you (like Oddity) finally admit that it's just a belief and not a fact or ultimate truth. Good. Then we are done here. Cheers.
 
Top