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

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

Greetings...I sent this as an email to Phoenix Venus about an hour ago and I thought that I'd share it.

Hi, I had an epiphany...possibly...a moment ago... check this out.


Cayce said that we are, on the average, only affected by as little as a couple-three to six Planets on the average...rare are those of us that have all nine...but I digress...

He also said that "...and all angles to the ascendant." ...thus He implied that all astrological Parts that utilize the Asc. as the Personal Point... and probably any House cusp for the personal point...as it only makes sense if they all do.. or at least the chart axis...but if it's at least that... then again... it only makes sense if they all do.

So... here's an imaginary person that has Saturn active but not Uranus and Neptune... Uranus and Neptune don't affect him... unless they are (one or the other or both) a factor in an astrological Part.
You see...it's not Uranus affecting Him but it's affecting his Asc. ...r.e. his Rising Sign and degree...which in turn affects him...affects him in the state it is as an Asc. at that moment... that is to say with Uranus affecting it...thus Uranus does have affect in this instance.

Now...

Say... what do you think happens when Uranus affects Saturn?
Saturn is affected and it in turn projects that affected nature of itself...
Thus Uranus does have effect when it affects one of the planets that have effect on him.
When Uranus affects Neptune...then He doesn't sense a thing different, unless...and this is a vague possibility at the moment... they are in aspect to the Asc. ...as...
all "angles of the Asc." have effect.

So...that leads to reason that even the ineffectual planets have effect...but only when they make a Major or Minor aspect to the Asc.

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

I followed that message with this...

...the Planets are affected whether you exist or not...they affect one another.
and as the one planet does affect you...it being affected itself ..that is what it is... at that ephemeral moment.

Your friend, say his name is Daniel, is coming down the street towards you ...you don't know his roommate/lover/whateverand that person has no affect on you...but that person did have quite any effect on Daniel that morning and when you meet up...He's Daniel affected by what just went down...what's going down.... He doesn't appear before you as if nothing is happening to him.

Also, that person with out Uranus and Neptune influence directly, they wouldn't incorporate into their being that aspect, at natal birth, that exists on their natal chart that is between Uranus and Neptune...


...and if natal Saturn were in aspect to either Uranus or Neptune ...then they would be incorporating Saturn with a smattering or more of what ever that aspect is between Saturn and Uranus or Neptune.

Cayce kept it encrypted... one just had to figure it out.

To use a dated simile, Not everyone has a direct line to all the planets...but the Planets all have a home phone...so to speak...and there is a way they can reach you.

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

I've tried to find what Cayce said about astrology. I know he said that people "nowadays" in his time were using a zodiac that was almost one sign off ... and that to me points us into the direction of using the sidereal zodiac as the correct zodiac. We also have evidence from ancient literature that it was actually the sidereal zodiac that the Babylonians and Egyptians used.

But this one is interesting. I myself am of the belief that people are mostly (or only) affected by the planets that appear within 5degr from their angles or are square or trine the angles and the planets in tight aspects to their luminaries and planets that have partile aspects (within 1 degr). That is what defines people. Other planets are not of importance.

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

Arena said:

I've tried to find what Cayce said about astrology. I know he said that people "nowadays" in his time were using a zodiac that was almost one sign off ... and that to me points us into the direction of using the sidereal zodiac as the correct zodiac. We also have evidence from ancient literature that it was actually the sidereal zodiac that the Babylonians and Egyptians used.

But this one is interesting. I myself am of the belief that people are mostly (or only) affected by the planets that appear within 5degr from their angles or are square or trine the angles and the planets in tight aspects to their luminaries and planets that have partile aspects (within 1 degr). That is what defines people. Other planets are not of importance.

Click to expand...

Yes, Edgar did say we were one sign off until the Summer of 1936...then he started saying two signs off. This has given most Cayce aficionados reason to speculate that we entered the age of Aquarius in the Summer of 1936.

You will notice that I don't take much interest in the given effect of the Signs of the Zodiac in charts...I do believe that some of the attributes were written during the age we were, for the most part, one sign off and thus do apply.

For one example, I have a Scorpio Asc. and I do find myself to be particularly aware of the sexuality of other people...yet by the Sideral Zodiac I have a Libra Asc.

What doesn't move with the constellations are the affects of the Divine precepts known as the Sabian Symbols. They have been repeatedly shown...proven in fact... to be in the exact same position they were over 2000 years ago.

I believe that they somehow are emanations of the Sun, or more likely, governed by the Angelic. ...or possibly both.

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

I've never seen anything about Cayce saying we would be two signs off... can you give a quote?

I have a Scorpio Asc. and I do find myself to be particularly aware of the sexuality of other people

Click to expand...

To me this has nothing to do with your ASC sign IMO it can be connected to a strong Mars or Pluto, possibly by aspect to luminaries or aspect to angles, possibly by placement in th 7th. The ASC in astrology is connected to one's appearances.

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

Arena said:

I've never seen anything about Cayce saying we would be two signs off... can you give a quote?



To me this has nothing to do with your ASC sign IMO it can be connected to a strong Mars or Pluto, possibly by aspect to luminaries or aspect to angles, possibly by placement in th 7th. The ASC in astrology is connected to one's appearances.

Click to expand...

You can find all that info about Cayce by studying the readings.
I don't have the time to cite every piece of info I cull from memory about what is in the Cayce readings.

Besides another member of the forum actually brought this to my attention but unfortunately I can't remember what thread that may have been in. She has been a student of the readings for nearly as long as I have and belongs to a large study group somewhere in the mid west of the U.S.A. dedicated to only the subject of Edgar Cayce on Astrology. There is also a small book that was published by, astrologer, Margaret Gammon in the late 1960's about the subject of Cayce on Astrology and while I did find it to be in error on a point or two and speculative at best on a few issues she did make some rather interesting presentations in the book in attempts to corroborate what Cayce had said in the various readings He gave on the subject. ...unfortunately that book is long out of print I believe...but I'm not 100% certain. I will suggest consulting the A.R.E. catalogue to see if it may still be available.

My parents were avid students of the readings and by their lives end they had amassed an impressive little library on the subject of Edgar Cayce ...most of which I inherited. I have been reading that material for the last 55 years... so you may imagine what it's like inside my mind on the subject of Cayce.

I will suggest getting a membership to the A.R.E. and getting access to the entire library of readings for your own edification.

("Nothing to do with my Sign"... Okay...whatever... Like I said, I have very little interest in them myself... I was merely making an observation.)

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

Let me simplify this process for you.
You will find that in any reading given after the Summer of 1936, on the subject of Astrology in which Edgar Cayce refers to the Sidereal Zodiac, that He says we were presently two signs off concerning the Spring Equinox.

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

You will find that in any reading given after the Summer of 1936, on the subject of Astrology in which Edgar Cayce refers to the Sidereal Zodiac, that He says we were presently two signs off concerning the Spring Equinox.

Click to expand...

That is of great interest to me, since I've been following the sidereal zodiac. There are different ayanamsas on the sidereal zodiac, but they do not differ very much, they are just around 1° apart. That sidereal zodiac is the closest fit to astronomy and is what Babylonians used, and I do believe that astrology does have resemblance to the real world (astronomy) although it is symbolic. Therefore the tropical zodiac is just way off when we look at the precession of Earth within the solar system. I wonder what Cayce's explanations on being 1-2 signs off would be if not following the sidereal zodiac.

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

Arena said:

That is of great interest to me, since I've been following the sidereal zodiac. There are different ayanamsas on the sidereal zodiac, but they do not differ very much, they are just around 1° apart. That sidereal zodiac is the closest fit to astronomy and is what Babylonians used, and I do believe that astrology does have resemblance to the real world (astronomy) although it is symbolic. Therefore the tropical zodiac is just way off when we look at the precession of Earth within the solar system. I wonder what Cayce's explanations on being 1-2 signs off would be if not following the sidereal zodiac.

Click to expand...

I'm not clear on what you meant by the last sentence of your text?

Cayce followed the Sidereal Zodiac... the question is whether the 30th degree of Aquarius of the Sidereal just entered that of the 1st degree of Aries of the Tropical in 1936 or whether He meant that it had finally, and completely, aligned with that degree.
That is a difference of 72 years... thus around 2008 sometime the 29th degree of Aquarius either just entered or completely aligned.

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

Ok so what you were pointing out was the astrological ages.
But the thing is that the sidereal zodiac is about 24degr earlier in the zodiac now and it was a bit less 72 yrs ago, it was not more than 30degr. So I wonder where he got his ayanamsa from, because none of the ayanamsa that are in most use are over 30degr difference. Do you remember reading about that from Cayce's collection - and could you inform what he said about the astrological ages? IF he says the Aquarius age started in 1936, then he is not using any of the sidereal ayanamsas used for the sidereal zodiac. Do you think he was actually going by a zodiac with signs of different lengths, like they actually appear in the sky?

Might he have used the Galactic ayanamsa? It is a few degrees off the most used ayanamsa in sidereal world.

The Galactic Ayanamsha is based on the Galactic Equatorial Nodes which are based on the Galactic Center.

I will add a bit. ... Actually what the sidereal world says is that by most of their ayanamsas the VEpoint is around 5degr Pisces now. But I think that by the Galactic ayanamsa and in the actual astronomical sky it is at 0 Pisces, so 5 degr earlier, therefore just about to enter Aquarius in coming decades. https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20160320_08_100
That ayanamsa, based on the galactic equator is actually about 30degrees off from the tropical I think, so that is the most possible ayanamsa he would have been using for getting a 30 degr difference.

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

Arena said:

Ok so what you were pointing out was the astrological ages.
But the thing is that the sidereal zodiac is about 24degr earlier in the zodiac now and it was a bit less 72 yrs ago, it was not more than 30degr. So I wonder where he got his ayanamsa from, because none of the ayanamsa are over 30degr difference. Do you remember reading about that from Cayce's collection - and could you inform what he said about the astrological ages? IF he says the Aquarius age started in 1936, then he is not using any of the sidereal ayanamsas used for the sidereal zodiac. Do you think he was actually going by a zodiac with signs of different lengths, like they actually appear in the sky?

Might he have used the Galctic ayanamsa? It is a few degrees off the most used ayanamsa in sidereal world.

The Galactic Ayanamsha is based on the Galactic Equatorial Nodes which are based on the Galactic Center.

That ayanamsa is actually about 30degrees off from the sidereal, so that is the most possible ayanamsa he would have been using for getting a 30 degr difference.

Click to expand...

Everything other than readings for physical ailments were not coming form Cayce...that other info was all channeled.
This was revealed in a reading for A.R.E. organizational management in the early 1930's. You can read of this development in the appendix of Jeffrey Furst's book "Edgar Cayce and the Story of Jesus" which was published in 1976 and is still in print. It's on page 364 of the aforementioned book, and it is stated to have been a record of reading #254-83 on 2/14/1935
He answered that all info was being provided by "Messengers from the the higher forces that manifest from the Throne of Grace itself." When asked who specifically those "Messengers" were, the reply was "Messengers from Most High" and that was subsequently revealed to be either the Angelic and, or, the Ascended Masters... aka the "Great White Brotherhood" aka the "White Lodge".

Edgar was then pressed to answer if whether Saint Germain was one of those providing the info and Cayce replied, "Yes, when needed".

I'm my humble opinion, there apparently may have been some concern because of the recent, at that time, claims made by Guy Ballard.

Yeshu'a/Jesus, himself, spoke through him on a couple of occasions .

Dane Rudhyar was associated with the Theosophists...in fact it was Annie Besant that encouraged Him to write his first book and she put up the money to publish it at the Theosophists' publishing company. Dane had been invited, by the Theosophists in the mid 1920s, to come to Los Angeles to write the musical score to a play they had written and wished to produce.
He ended up marrying Leadbetter's, one time, personal secretary... his first wife of four. Saint Germain was allegedly in contact with the Theosophists.

My publisher provided me with an assistant to help me write my book. that woman is Dorothy Leon, proclaimed disciple of Saint Germain and an author, herself, of many books. I found her to a most genuinely sincere and honest woman... a delightful soul and one very advanced in knowledge....besides being an excellent copy editor.

...go figure...

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

In other words, in answer to your question...would you question such a source?

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

If it helps, you can look through the FULL archive of Cayce's public readings here:

http://aawmagazine.com/

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

Well I have for some time had some kind of special belief in Cayce, although I've not read all those scripts. ThereforeI am asking,trying to figure out how his assessment took place. Tonight I've been reading about how the ancient actually used the heliacal rising sign, but not the actual placement of the VE point to mark the ages. So that would surely explain the Aquarian age has recently started.

You might find it of interest as well
https://macroastro.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/an-age-old-mistake/

http://cura.free.fr/xxv/21sepp2.html

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

Been reading a bit more on this issue. Seems to me that the ayanamsa of the Galactic equator, which is now 30degr off the tropical zodiac would use Regulus as "the king of kings" to mark the start of Leo, therefore Regulus actually being at 0degr Leo fixed.

This would correspond with Cayce's idea about the zodiac being 30degr off , but not 23-25 degr like most commonly used ayanamsa use.

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

Phoenix Venus said:

If it helps, you can look through the FULL archive of Cayce's public readings here:

http://aawmagazine.com/

Click to expand...

Oh, thank you so much for the link Phoenix Venus.
I'll take a look at those.

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

Thanks for creating this thread piercethevale and thanks for the input from all the other guys! Very interesting. Seems so far mostly in alignment with my own approach. I think I'm going to check out what Cayce had to say about astrology in more detail and then report back.

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

Arena said:

Been reading a bit more on this issue. Seems to me that the ayanamsa of the Galactic equator, which is now 30degr off the tropical zodiac would use Regulus as "the king of kings" to mark the start of Leo, therefore Regulus actually being at 0degr Leo fixed.

This would correspond with Cayce's idea about the zodiac being 30degr off , but not 23-25 degr like most commonly used ayanamsa use.

Click to expand...

The others go with Spica as 0 Libra.

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

Yes. I am sure that one of those is the correct one, I am just not sure which one. Garth Allen (Bradley) went through some testing and research before he actually rectified the ayanamsa to what he thought the best fit with ingress charts.

However, if Cayce said there was "nearly" 30 degr difference, I am not sure if he meant "around 25 degr" or if he actually meant 29,xx as his "nearly 30 degr". IF he meant the latter, then that means the Galactic center is used as the fixed point for the whole zodiacal system. That might make more sense than other methods, since all those "fixed" stars are actually not totally fixed. But to prove this theory, extensive research is needed. Comparing mundane charts and ingresses.

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

Arena said:

Yes. I am sure that one of those is the correct one, I am just not sure which one. Garth Allen (Bradley) went through some testing and research before he actually rectified the ayanamsa to what he thought the best fit with ingress charts.

However, if Cayce said there was "nearly" 30 degr difference, I am not sure if he meant "around 25 degr" or if he actually meant 29,xx as his "nearly 30 degr". IF he meant the latter, then that means the Galactic center is used as the fixed point for the whole zodiacal system. That might make more sense than other methods, since all those "fixed" stars are actually not totally fixed. But to prove this theory, extensive research is needed. Comparing mundane charts and ingresses.

Click to expand...

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.