Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Osamenor
Staff member
All,
I see a lot of confusion here. It's especially well expressed in this post:
Discussion of outers is allowed on AW except on the Traditional Astrology board, which is where this thread was originally posted. I have moved it for that reason. It sounds to me like that confusion came from people saying "this forum" when they meant the Traditional Astrology board, but "this forum" could just as easily mean the entire site.
For everyone's reminder, here is the blurb for the Traditional Astrology board. If you wish to post in Traditional Astrology, please read the blurb first and make sure your posting is traditional by the forum's definition:
Bolded parts mine, for emphasis.
Since this thread is no longer on the Traditional Astrology board, discussion of it not being appropriate for where it's posted is no longer relevant. If anyone genuinely wants to discuss the non-use of outer planets in traditional astrology, why that's so, anything like that, you may continue to do so respectfully.
I see a lot of confusion here. It's especially well expressed in this post:
Discussion of outers is allowed on AW except on the Traditional Astrology board, which is where this thread was originally posted. I have moved it for that reason. It sounds to me like that confusion came from people saying "this forum" when they meant the Traditional Astrology board, but "this forum" could just as easily mean the entire site.
For everyone's reminder, here is the blurb for the Traditional Astrology board. If you wish to post in Traditional Astrology, please read the blurb first and make sure your posting is traditional by the forum's definition:
Bolded parts mine, for emphasis.
Since this thread is no longer on the Traditional Astrology board, discussion of it not being appropriate for where it's posted is no longer relevant. If anyone genuinely wants to discuss the non-use of outer planets in traditional astrology, why that's so, anything like that, you may continue to do so respectfully.
david starling
Well-known member
you are posting on Traditional forum
Traditional forum excludes the outers
nothing to do with sheep
Aries is the Sign represented by a male sheep .
waybread
Well-known member
It would be nice to focus on the actual issues.
Jupiter Ascendant mentioned what I think is the main issue.
Traditional western astrology tends to look at the strength of planets as sorted out by a table of essential dignities. There are a couple of different versions (Chaldean, Egyptian) but basically it is really important to traditional astrology. Because the table of essential dignities goes back to the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, and the first modern outer (Uranus) wasn't discovered until the 18th century, there just isn't any way to shoehorn the modern outers into this table.
The trads also consider "accidental dignities" that seem less important to mods, such as angularity, being in- or out-of-sect.
Oddity mentioned something near and dear to the hearts of many traditional astrologers, the concept of light visible to the naked eye. I don't buy it personally, for reasons I can get into, but nonetheless, it matters to the trads.
Some trads use the modern outers as separate data points, others do not. None of them, so far as I know, would use a modern outer as a sign ruler.
Jupiter Ascendant mentioned what I think is the main issue.
Traditional western astrology tends to look at the strength of planets as sorted out by a table of essential dignities. There are a couple of different versions (Chaldean, Egyptian) but basically it is really important to traditional astrology. Because the table of essential dignities goes back to the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, and the first modern outer (Uranus) wasn't discovered until the 18th century, there just isn't any way to shoehorn the modern outers into this table.
The trads also consider "accidental dignities" that seem less important to mods, such as angularity, being in- or out-of-sect.
Oddity mentioned something near and dear to the hearts of many traditional astrologers, the concept of light visible to the naked eye. I don't buy it personally, for reasons I can get into, but nonetheless, it matters to the trads.
Some trads use the modern outers as separate data points, others do not. None of them, so far as I know, would use a modern outer as a sign ruler.
david starling
Well-known member
Is the significance of an Aspect based on Declinations a Traditional concept?
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
you are posting on Traditional forum
Traditional forum excludes the outers
nothing to do with sheep
Aries is a Sign featured in modern astrology
by the way
a moderator has just highlighted
that this thread is no longer on the Traditional board
david starling
Well-known member
Aries is a Sign featured in modern astrology
by the way
a moderator has just highlighted
that this thread is no longer on the Traditional board
So, Traditional doesn't use a male sheep for Cardinal-Fire?
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
for anyone requiring validation of traditional concepts
there is a useful STUDY LIBRARY OF FREE TEXTS ON THE WEB
There are five collections in this library
- The main collection contains links to books and magazines written in English
- that are directly related to 'traditional astrology' (from classical to modern times)
- The extended collection refers to texts that are partly astrological
- or useful for historical research or philosophical principles.
- The ancient collection contains links to ancient texts, fragments
- or secondary sources that cover the ancient period.
- The scholar's collection contains links to published theses, dissertations
- and peer-reviewed papers.
- The Latin & Greek collection contains links to important works in older languages
Another good list of links to astrological works is available at http://cura.free.fr/DIAL.html
Some vedic astrologers also use the outers.
You can't calculate strength for the outers. Too many unanswered questions. That's why they only really work in modern western astrology where planetary strength only plays a minor role or no role at all.
Yes, there are some obvious holes in the naked eye theory.
Oddity
Well-known member
Not really. We're talking about a wandering star that's barely visible once in a while. Single weak fixed stars aren't used either, never were. Noticeable clouds of them are sometimes used, and comets are used.
Didn't jyotish also work that way?
david starling
Well-known member
The Sun is a star that obscures all others, and the wandering stars as well. So, if you're talking about stars being "weak or strong" relative to natural vision, you're making the case for Sun-sign Astrology.
Oddity
Well-known member
As a rule, David, the stars, both fixed and wandering, are visible at night.
Going by your logic, one could also make a case for moon-sign astrology, I suppose. In reality, the sun is more important in a day chart, and the moon in a night chart, but neither is the sole determining factor. I guess for you it is, so sun signs are the most important thing?
If you don't like traditional astrology that's fine, you don't have to use it. I'm just trying to explain it, but rapidly coming to the conclusion that there's no point.
Going by your logic, one could also make a case for moon-sign astrology, I suppose. In reality, the sun is more important in a day chart, and the moon in a night chart, but neither is the sole determining factor. I guess for you it is, so sun signs are the most important thing?
If you don't like traditional astrology that's fine, you don't have to use it. I'm just trying to explain it, but rapidly coming to the conclusion that there's no point.
david starling
Well-known member
It's the scorn for all things Modern-astrology has to offer I find offensive. I'm keenly aware that Traditional is at the roots of Modern, and I think it's excellent that there are those maintaining its internal integrity. I'm too enamoured with developing and testing new patterns which include the non-visible Planets to spend my limited time learning the ins and outs of Traditional. Traditionalists in this Community seem to have a "secret club" attitude, "like you're either in or you're out", and seem very loathe to reveal information on a "casual" basis--where casual means, "you're not one of us, so look it up for yourself."
This whole "visible-only" thing doesn't even matter to me. It's the valuable patterns formed by the 7 rulers/12 signs configuration that can't be maintained once you add another planet. The ancients worked with what they could see, with excellent results. Other patterns can reveal other results, without detracting from the originals.
Oddity, just to clarify, YOU made the case for Sun-sign astrology with your claim that "brighter is stronger", which, if true, would make the Sun-sign overwhelmingly powerful. I, for one, disagree that it is, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Oddity
Well-known member
David, brighter is stronger in some ways. Let there be light. The sun. That's where most of it comes from for us.
That doesn't mean it's the only star that affects us, but it does represent the light of mind, consciousness. So it's very important to everyone. But in trad, manners don't come from signs, they come from planets. And interestingly, the only planet they don't come from is the sun.
I see far more disdain for traditional astrology here than for modern. Far more. Which is why there's a forum for trad where we don't deal with modern astrology.
As to there being a secret club - no. But some of these concepts are complicated, and all of it builds on previous knowledge. So it comes down to - do I want to write 20 pages in the forum to try to explain it to you, or just refer you to a text that will do the same?
I know some people don't like to read, though I'd argue that if that's the case, astrology may not be for you. And as you said, you don't have time to test traditional techniques, you prefer to test modern ones. I'm still trying to determine how helpful a lot of the trad ones are. Not trying to be a snob. You don't have an interest in this field, other people do. That's all.
That doesn't mean it's the only star that affects us, but it does represent the light of mind, consciousness. So it's very important to everyone. But in trad, manners don't come from signs, they come from planets. And interestingly, the only planet they don't come from is the sun.
I see far more disdain for traditional astrology here than for modern. Far more. Which is why there's a forum for trad where we don't deal with modern astrology.
As to there being a secret club - no. But some of these concepts are complicated, and all of it builds on previous knowledge. So it comes down to - do I want to write 20 pages in the forum to try to explain it to you, or just refer you to a text that will do the same?
I know some people don't like to read, though I'd argue that if that's the case, astrology may not be for you. And as you said, you don't have time to test traditional techniques, you prefer to test modern ones. I'm still trying to determine how helpful a lot of the trad ones are. Not trying to be a snob. You don't have an interest in this field, other people do. That's all.
david starling
Well-known member
The Moon is more important than the Sun, because it shines at night when we need the light, whereas the Sun shines during the day, when we don't. 
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
The Moon is more important than the Sun
because it shines at night
when we need the light
whereas the Sun shines during the day, when we don't.
Without the Sun
the Moon has no light
i.e.
the Moon shines because the Sun shines
the Moon simply reflects the light of the Sun
david starling
Well-known member
Without the Sun
the Moon has no light
i.e.
the Moon shines because the Sun shines
the Moon simply reflects the light of the Sun
Actually, the same is true for planets as well.
david starling
Well-known member
First, thanks for the information concerning that Traditional information about the Sun. I do find it useful.
Second, I've been promoting a "tree-analogy" concerning Traditional and Modern, with Traditional as the roots and Modern as the branches. An attack on either is an attack on Astrology itself.