|
Zodiacal
Wheels
(Dialogue between Michael Robbins and Phillip Lindsay)
MICHAEL: "When we state, for instance, that the Sun is 'in Aries'
it conveys an esoteric truth but not an exoteric fact. The Sun was in
Aries at the beginning of this great cycle, but is not in exactly the
same postion when it is 'found' in that sign"
But the "esoteric truth" is that, somehow, even though there
is no *exoteric alignment*, the energy of the *constellation* Aries
is, nevertheless, being transmitted through the *sign*. In my opinion,
this is occuring because of an *esoteric* relation between *constellation*
and *sign*.
PHILLIP: EA266-7 : "It is the law of affinity which produces the
magnetic pull and the dynamic response between constellations and planets
within the solar system and between some particular planet and the forms
of life upon another planet and the 'impending energies,' as they are
called, *which are being received from some major source."The law
of affinity relates that which is within the solar system to that which
is without - "some major source" - i.e. constellations. It
doesn't matter that the constellations are not synchronous to the signs
- that would be a physical impossibility by degrees anyhow. The Law
of Affinity cuts through exoteric astronomers' concrete conceptions
(when deriding
astrology) of there having to be alignment.
MICHAEL: The Sun was in Aries at the beginning of this great cycle,
but is not in
exactly the same postion when it is 'found' in that sign".
a. Here there is a mixture. D.K. begins the sentence talking *sidereally*.
The Sun was *sidereally* (in the Heavens) in the constellation Aries
at the beginning of a *certain* great cycle. It is difficult to tell
*which* cycle He means, as at the beginning of our 2160 yr. Age of Pisces,
the Sun was constellationally in zero degrees of Aries going into 30
degrees of Pisces(they are the same).
PHILLIP: I think he's talking about the coincidence of the 2 zodiacs
here, and how they have drifted apart. Exoteric astrologers agree that
tropical/sidereal coincided at around this time - Fagan gives 221AD.
If we use DK's ayanamsa 2117-2160 = 23BC - it is much closer to the
"start of the great cycle".
MICHAEL: Around the time of Christ's last appearance in Palestine,
a great 250,000 yr. cycle ended (Sun orbiting the Pleiades?). Right
'now' (more or less) a 25,000 yr Piscean cycle is ending and so is (more
or less) a 2160 year cycle ending. Is the 250,000 yr cycle *also* keyed
to our zodiac of 12 and its constellations. ?
PHILLIP: I think so. The Monads whose life cycle have a correspondence
to 250,000 years, are incarnating through this planet. Also, is this
cycle 10 Platonic Years of 25,000 (25,000 X 10 = 250,000) - therefore
systemic rather than cosmic ? A 25,000 Pisces cycle is ending, but EA322
: "Pisces is the starting point on the clockwise wheel *at this
time* for the greater zodiacal round of
25,000 years". There seems to be 25,000 year wheels that go in
both directions. (I am aware of all the quotes for the Pisces ending
cycle of 25,000 years)
MICHAEL : "Perhaps there is a great *sidereal* alignment (of the
Earth's Equinotical Axis) with the contellations Cancer/Capricorn, while
individual human units are being born *tropically* for the *first time*
in the *sign* Pisces. Anyway--H.P.B (now, according to Helena Roerich,
"Master Blavatsky")---do you think her potent spirituality
would have been more authentically represented with the Sun in sidereal
Cancer and sidereal Gemini Rising? I am interested in people's opinions
on this.
PHILLIP : No, Cancer rising suited her physically and psychically. Leo
sun too. Then there's HPB's Libran moon (and Venus), which would (both)
be Virgo sidereally, leaving nothing in Libra whatsoever. EA229 "Hence
the effectiveness of Libra upon the physical plane...a person equipped
to do this...HP Blavatsky".
PHILLIP : It would be interesting to do a study of the physical distances/magnitudes
of stars within the 12 constellations, to ascertain their physical wholistic
relationship, and how much that supports the
astrological/mythological model. (See EA28)
MICHAEL : What you, Phillip, call for above, would be a study of tremendous
value---I suspect rather beyond the capacities of even quite good esoteric
astrologers. But the possibility must be stated!
MICHAEL : I do think, however, that the constellational aggregations
are not merely *visual*, and that there is a definite interplay between
the Solar Logoi Who comprise our zodiacal constellations. While the
degree of Their participation in *constellational wholeness* may vary
from star to star (i.e., from Solar Logos to Solar Logos), there is,
I think, such a thing as a *Constellational* Logos (TCF, p. 293), Who
expresses through aggregations of stars (of which only *seven* stars
need to be major---just as in our solar system only *seven* planets
of the 115+ need to be *major*).
PHILLIP : I totally concur.
MICHAEL: : a) What is the source? b) How do we actually *receive* the
energy of the source?
PHILLIP : *receive* the energy of the source -EA227-8 , EA 609-11
MICHAEL: I look forward to your description. I am, however, asking for
the modus operandi. I know the *paths* as D.K. has given them, but the
*means* is obscure, and no doubt, highly *mathematical* having to do
with *resonance- entrainment*.
PHILLIP - I thought "modus operandi" was what you originally
meant. This is the core of the "Science of Relationships"
(Esoteric Astrology) and a great many mysteries abound. We can start
with the etheric web I guess, and look at the Sources of influence,
how the thoughtform currents under karmic law are "directed"
by the informing entities, precipitate, translate, modify, filter, transmute
- on the way to their various destinations - via the constellations,
signs, planets etc. Esoteric Astrology "plots" those
inter -relationships and transfer of energy. Again, its working from
above to below, but also getting clues by working from below to above.
For instance, understanding the reception of energy by human/planetary
chakras and their transmission to the endocrine gland/country, galvanizing
the hormones/humans into activity within the bloodstream/nations, is
a KEY.
MICHAEL : Surely a simple zodiacal "sign" (tropically considered)
cannot concern the "destiny" of a Plantetary Logos, but a
*constellation* can certainly concern such a destiny.
PHILLIP : EA21, "It might be added in addition that the signs
of the zodiac are concerned primarily with the life expression of the
Heavenly Man (as far as our planet is concerned) and therefore with
the destiny and life of the planetary Logos".
I disagree. Although the HM responds to the constellations, the *life
expression* is through the lower vehicles of the PL, to which the tropical
zodiac is related. What about the Destiny of the Nations - the anatomy
for that *life expression* ? Consider also your later remark :
MICHAEL - "So much depends upon whether we consider the origin
of the tropical signs to be ....a structural factor within the Planetary
Logos (perhaps created by the Logos' own thought). What about the Destiny
of the Nations - the anatomy for that *life expression* ?
Is the tropical zodiac conceived as being the etheric body of the earth?
PHILLIP - EA12 "the energy which emanates from the earth itself...the
emanating qualities and forces which are the contribution of our earth's
etheric body to the larger whole". I would say that the etheric
energies are "independant" of the zodiac when looked at in
this light.In light of another section of EA12 : "Astrologers
have always emphasised the incoming influences and energies as they
beat upon and play through our little planet..." This seems
to suggest that the "incoming influences and energies" are
from
planets, zodiac signs and constellations. Yet it must be considered
that they are continually conditioning the Earth, so her "emanating"
qualities are really a combination of "incoming influences"
and whatever is "arising from within". Then there is the etheric
web which connects to everything...
I would hazard a guess that the terrestrial zodiac relates to the astral
body of the Earth - hence the glamours and illusions associated with
astrology. This is a HUGE diversion right now, but if we take the TCF512
and EA362, 362 - with Venus as the common factor, it may be a good place
to start. We really need to address one topic at a time.
MICHAEL : I do not know the astronomy here, but does the Sun have an
axial tilt with respect to a different and greater Plane or Ecliptic?
Maybe someone knows.I will have to study it. I am staying that our Solar
System as a whole may be experiencing a Great Age quite different from
the Age correlated with Earth's Platonic Year and certainly different
from the Earth's lesser Precessional Age.
PHILLIP : "A 25,000 Pisces cycle is ending, but EA322 : "Pisces
is the starting point on the clockwise wheel *at this time* for the
greater zodiacal round of 25,000 years". There seems to be 25,000
year wheels that go in both directions. (I am aware of all the quotes
for the Pisces ending cycle of 25,000 years)
May have confused things here with the wrong quote, as you say later
on : "It does appear as if these great Platonic Years also are
proceeding *clockwise*, otherwise, Aquarius (25,000) would not follow
Pisces (25,000)."
MICHAEL : Of course, if there is a reason for D.K. saying 25,000,
instead of 25, 858...
(See Stephen Pugh's comments here on the generic 25,000 year Ray 2 cycle)
PHILLIP : I intuit it is a rounded off figure, but, you never know.
HPB's figure was 25,868 : (from 6 vols SD) 25,868 - Cycle of Greater
Zodiac; 'divided into 8 several kinds of men' (SD2-376); 'divided into
370 esoteric cycles' - SD2-73)
Back
Cycle
of Pole Shift
Cliff Ribaudo
HPB makes some references to 2 cycles, 1 of which we are all familiar
with and another which I was not so familiar with. The reference was
not totally clear and it took me a while to figure it out. I want to
check it with the group to see if any of you concur or understand this
differently.
1) She states that the equinox processes at the rate of 50.10 seconds
of arc per year. Using the following formula of:
360 degrees x 60 min x 60 second = 1,296,000
seconds of arc in a circle we get:
25,868.26 yrs = 1,296,000 / 50.10
As the exact rate of polar rotation related precession of the equinoxes.
OK this is not so hard, but it does produce a number for an astrological
age which is not the familiar one (2155.69). However I am coming to
the conclusion that the more familiar number of 2160 is a rounded number.
For my purposes this is no longer sufficient as one needs to know the
exact rate to work out thecalculations related to racial evolution.
QUESTION 1: Does anyone have a more exact and/or modern precession rate
than
50.1 seconds of arc per year?
2) The second cycle was more difficult to comprehend, but as I have
been able to conceptualize it, it seems that the apsis points, (apogee
and perigee) in theearth's orbit around the sun, rotate very slowly.
By this I mean that if the earth's orbit left a trail in space it would
not be an exact ellipse tracing over and over itself each year but rather
like one of those spiralagraph pictures or a lotus due to the fact that
these points rotate very slowly. Said another way, if there was no polar
rotation and you looked in the direction of the sun each year when the
earth was at one of these points, such as the apogee, the sun would
be seen to be rising 11.22 seconds of arc further into the sign than
it did the year before. Using the formula of:
115,302.29 yrs = 1,296,000 / 11.22
This is the exact rate for precession of the apsis points.
QUESTION 2: Does anyone understand this differently?
QUESTION 3: If this is right does anyone have a better number than 11.22.
Now HPB further states that because the equinox point precesses through
the signs in the direction of Aries to Pisces to Aquarius, and the apsis
point precesses through the signs in the opposite direction, Aries to
Taurus to Gemini these two approach each other at a rate of:
50.10 + 11.22 = 60.32
And therefore the solstice points occur when the earth is also at one
of the apsis points in its orbit (picking an easy reference point) every:
21,278.29 yrs = 1,296,000 / 60.32
QUESTION 2: Does anyone concur or disagree with this conclusion?
Now apparently this cycle of 21,278.29 years is very important in terms
of minor cataclysms and the arising of new family subraces. The fact
that the sun is rising in a different sign each time this 21,278.29
year cycle concludes perhaps effects the quality of the new family sub
race. There also seem to be some other subtle cycles that I need to
spend some time working out related to the interaction of these two
above mentioned cycles. This is related to the fact that:
25,868.26 - 21,278.29 = 2389.97 / 2155.69 =
2.03625
2.03625 is not an exact number and I need to spend some time figuring
out if that is due to the fact that my calculations don't have enough
precision or if it represents a valid very slow precession. If the later
is true then I am quitesure this will prove to be a very interesting
number with respect to theevolution of races. What would help is if
anyone has more exact numbers.
Back
Rootraces
and Cycles
Cliff Ribaudo
I checked my notes which are based on statements made by HPB in SD Vol
II around pg 229. Here is the approximated time line for the 5th Root
Race:
1 Million Years Ago - Start of 5th Root Race
- 1st "Sub Race" Each has an approximate
duration of 210,000 yrs. and apparently there is a lot of overlap.
However it seems new ones start every 210,000 yrs.
- 7 "Family Sub Races" each of an
approximate duration of 30,000 yrs. HPB relates the duration of these
to the 25,920 yr precession cycle. These Family Sub Races exist in every
Sub Race.
- 850,000 yrs ago, approximate end of 5th family
sub race, destruction of aryo/atlantean Giants on island of Ruta or
Daitya.
790,000 Years Ago - 2nd Sub Race
580,000 Years Ago - 3rd Sub Race
370,000 Years Ago - 2th Sub Race
160,000 Years Ago - 5th Sub Race
- This is close to your number for the 6 preceding
little ages of Aquarius however I was not remembering clearly on my
1.5 million number. HPB might be a bit off, but not by 850,000 yrs,
so DKs statement has to be referring to the 5th Sub Race and not the
5th Root Race.
- 130,000 yrs ago - start of 2nd family sub
race
- 100,000 yrs ago - start of 3rd family sub
race
- 70,000 yrs ago - start of 2th family sub
race
- 20,000 yrs ago - start of 5th family sub
race
- 10,000 yrs ago - start of 6th family sub
race
- Sinking of
last remnants of "Aryo-Atlantis" (Mentioned by plato).
Once
again we have a racial destruction coinciding with the start of
a family sub race. Approx. Age of Cancer. Interesting they should go
into the sea in a water sign. Here is how I got this.
In
a 1926 letter in E.H., DK states that we will enter Cap. in approx.
2300 yrs. So 2300 - 2160 = 120 + 1926 = 2086 (approx Start of Aquarius)
I know there are some other dates (2127) floating around but this will
do for now.
Now
given that HPB wrote 100 yrs ago the 10,000 yr number is probably closer
to 11,000, but who knows given the veils and estimates the used. Anyway:
-
2020 yrs ago - 72 BC - Start of Pisces
-
2180 yrs ago - 2232 BC - Start of Aries
-
6320 yrs ago - 2392 BC - Start of Taurus
-
8500 yrs ago - 6552 BC - Start of Gemini
-10660
yrs ago - 8712 BC - Start of Cancer (Now aint that
pretty darn close!)
- We are in this
now. We are the 6th Family Sub Race of the 5th Sub Race of the 5th Root
Race and we were born in Cancer.
- NOW - Another 20,000 years to go in our family
sub race.
- Interestingly enough HPB states elsewhere
(I will save this for tomorrow that due to a certain tilting of the
earth's axis that coincides with the precession, the next axial shift
will be in about 15,000 years from now.
Interesting how this coincides
once again with the next family subrace. This seems to be one of those
areas (the other two being tidily winks and handgrenades) where close
is good enough.
- NOW + 20,000 - start of 7th family
sub race
50,000
Yrs From Now - 6th Sub Race of 5th Root Race
260,000 Yrs From Now - 7th Sub Race of 5th Root Race
270,000 Yrs From Now - Start of 6th ROOT RACE
Back
36 Year Cycle
David Kesten
To me, it would be a great help if the parans could be listed for the
planets and also the stars in clock time in the next version of Solar
Fire. It would be nice to include the zodiacal longitudefor the
parans also.
Other things which I am hoping for are:
1) listing of declination in numerical order
2) an inclusion of the maps of eclipses before 1950 in Solar Maps
3) the 36 year cycles of planets
These 36 year cycles were very popular in the west until about fifty
years ago. David Anrias (supposedly under the inspiration of the
masters) wrtoe about this in the popular astrological press and included
it in his book, Through The Eyes Of The Masters (published by Samuel
Weiser,
New York, 1976--first published in 1932). He cites the Mars cycle
which ran from the Spring Equinox 1909 through the Spring Equinox 1925.
The first and last year of each cycle are ruled by the planet
ruling the 36 years cycle. So Mars rules 1909 and 1922. The planetary
order is the traditional Chaldean one of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun,
Venus, Mercury, Moon. So we have:
1909 Mars
1910 Sun
1911 Venus
1912 Mercury
1913 Moon
1912 Saturn
1915 Jupiter
1916 Mars
1917 Sun
etc.
The recent 36 year cycles are as follows:
Saturn (and Virgo) 1765- 1800
Venus (and Libra) 1801- 1836
Jupiter (and Scorpio) 1837- 1872
Mercury (and Sag) 1873- 1908
Mars (and Capricorn) 1909- 1922
Moon (and Aquarius) 1925- 1980
Sun (and Pisces) 1981- 2016
Saturn (and Aries) 2017- 2052
Venus (and Taurus) 2053- 2088
Jupiter (and Gemini) 2089- 2122
Mercury (and Cancer) 2125- 2160
(As you can observe, the order of these 36 years cycles is
the weekdays in reverse order.)
1998 is part of the 36 year Sun cycle, a Moon year
1999 a Saturn year
2000 a Jupiter year
2001 a Mars year
2002 a Sun year
etc.
Again, the years begins of the Spring equinox and theplanetary day begins
at dawn.
So today, Friday, October 16,1998 is
36 year Sun Cycle
Moon year
Venus day
Moon hour (9:36amPDT Berkeley, CA)
It is a 36 year cycle.
Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon Saturn Jupiter
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913
1912 1915
1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922
1923 1922 1925 1926 1927
1928 1929 36 year Mars
cycle
1930 1931 1932 1933 1932
1935 1936
1937 1938 1939 1920 1921
1922 1923
1922
1925
1926 1927
1928 1929 1950 1951 1952
1953 1952
1955 1956 1957 1958 1959
1960 1961
1962 1963 1962 1965 1966
1967 1968 36 year Moon
cycle
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
1972 1975
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1982 1985
1986
1987 1988 1989 1999 1991
1992 1993
1992 1995 1996 1997 1998
1999 2000 36 year Sun
cycle
2001 2002 2003 2002 2005
2006 2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2012
2015 2016
2017 2018
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
2022 2025
2026 36
year Saturn cycle
From Graham Dawson:
There
are apparent contradictions in the Anrias book. The contradictions are,
i) He implies that 1922 is the end of the Mars cycle (instead 1925)
ii) He calls it a 35 year cycle (instead of 36)
I think that the first contradiction can be explained away as he is
probably referring to 1992 as being the final (full) year of the Mars
cycle, rather than it actually ending in 1922. The Mars cycle starts
in
1909 and the next cycle (the Moon) starts in 1925 (as stated on page
78 of the Anrias book). Anrias also confirms 1922 as indeed being
a Mars year in the tabulation on page 71. Thus 36 years elapse from
the start of the Mars cycle to the start of the next (Moon) cycle.
The second contradiction is harder to explain away, but it is nevertheless
very clear to me from the material given that the cycle has a duration
of 36 calendar years - not 35.
Back
The Seven Solar Systems
(Dialogue between Michael Robbins and Stephen Pugh)
1. To
what extent do the outer configuration of star systems reflect their
inner, subtle configuration? For example, there are seven
major energies connected with the Great Bear and also seven major observable
stars; there are seven major energies connected with the Little Bear
(but it is not so easy to decide upon seven major stars through which
the Great Bear energies are transmitted); there are two basic energies
coming from Sirius and there are two stars generally to be observed
when one looks at Sirius as usually considered—Sirius A and Sirius B;
there are three basic energies from the Pleiades (but no such obvious
three stars are to be seen amidst the seven or nine)
All star systems are really lotuses, internally; do their out configurations
(number of stars etc.) somehow reveal numbers within the inner lotuses
or qualities within the inner lotuses?
This is the great inner and outer question. Sometimes you say
it is important (as when thinking of Sirius as a twofold ajna center
within the OAWNMBS; sometimes you discount it as insignificant (as in
your letter on the SSSOWOIO, when you spoke of the great Hexagon with
a point in the center).
So a rephrasing of the question is: to what
extent does outer astronomical structure and dynamics reveal inner occult/esoteric
structure and dynamics? Is there a principle here?
2.
To what extent are
the magnitude of stars and star system an indication of the spiritual
development of the logoi Who inform them?
What, for instance, would you say about the relative spiritual
development or status of the logoi of our system (Sol), Sirius, Betelgeuse,
and Alnilam—having as they do such differing “absolute magnitudes” and
solar-luminosities? (For the purposes of definition, if a star has “one
solar luminosity” (SL), it is exactly as radiant as our Sun, (Sol).
Solar luminosities are used to determine “absolute magnitude”
3. How
does the principle of relativism help us define the true nature
of the relations between stars and star systems? Let us think,
in this regard, of “visual magnitude” and “absolute magnitude” and how
these two modes of measurement reveal different kinds of relationships
between stars and constellations. For instance, Sirius (so close to
us) and so bright, visually, to us, is very important to our
solar system, and probably to our local constellations consisting of
seven major solar logoi; but Sirius (whose “absolute magnitude” is far
weaker than its “visual magnitude” {as that visual magnitude seems to
us to us}. may be far less important within the OAWNMBS, than it is
to our immediate solar system and the members of our immediate constellation
(the SSSOWOIO).
4. Within
chakra systems, are chakras (though different in relative intensity
and unfoldment) comparable in hierarchical structure? Is
there a principle which states that within any chakra system, all chakras
must be similar kinds of entities—i.e., all globes, all chains, all
planetary schemes, all solar logoi, all constellational logoi, etc.,
etc., even all galaxies and beyond?
5. How
important is “chakric magnitudinal consistency” within any chakra system?
a.
For instance, within the chakra system of a solar logos, certain
planetary schemes are considered to be major chakras. Are there any
instances in which beings of lesser or greater ‘ontological status’
(i.e., ‘status-in-being’) than a planetary logos are also found
representing the major chakras of a solar logos?
b.
For instance, the major chakras within a planetary scheme are
represented by planetary chains. Are there any instances in which beings
of lesser or greater ‘ontological status’ than a planetary chain lord
are also found representing the major chakras of a planetary
logos?
c.
A constellation is composed of solar logoi and their representative
suns. According to the tabulation on TCF 293, these solar logoi represent
the chakras within a “cosmic Logos”. On this page, a “cosmic logos”
is one which expresses through a constellation—hence my term, “constellational
logos”.
Entity
Vehicle
Center
Space
“A cosmic Logos
7 solar systems solar Logos
2 cosmic planes.
Are there any instances in which beings of lesser or greater ‘ontological
status’ than a solar logos are also found representing the major
chakras of a cosmic logos (as defined on TCF 293)?
d.
What I call a ‘super-constellational logos’, and what, on TCF
293 are called the “Unknown” and elsewhere the OAWNMBS, has major chakras
which are represented by constellations or by cosmic logoi. Are there
any instances in which beings of lesser or greater ‘ontological status’
than cosmic logoi are also found representing the major chakras
of super-constellational logoi?
e.
It is precisely here, that you may say, “Yes”. Without excessive
concern, you mix constellations and solar logoi as major centers of
the OAWNMBS. True, you say the Sirius (because there is a Sirius B)
is a constellation. And your refer to the Secret Doctrine, remembering
that the planets are “brothers” of our Sun, and hence imply that the
planets are, as if, stars, and that, therefore, our solar system
is really a constellation. Re Antares, I am not sure how
you handle the problem.
But I say that Sirius B may be the cosmic moon of Sirius A. And
that our solar system is really a solar system (and not a constellation),
otherwise every solar system would probably have to be called a constellation,
as probably every solar system was started among qualitatively similar
“brothers”.
So this question must be answered. One of the principles I hold to as
I attempt to understand cosmology and cosmogony, is what I call ‘magnitudinal
consistency’ within any chakra system, and I believe all observable
chakra systems (from which we may upwardly analogize) bear me out in
my affirmation of the importance of preserving this kind of consistency.
6. Are
the constellations which have been classified and named, really
only convenient pictures to be used a mnemonic devices, or (in
many instances) do they reflect the associations of star-entities who
are actually cooperating, physically and metaphysically?
“Humanity is on its way to a right understanding of services;
it is becoming responsive to this new law and is learning to react to
the steadily imposing will of that great Life who informs the constellation
Aquarius, just as our solar Logos informs our solar system and our planetary
Logos informs our earth planet.” (EP 122)
We see that there is a Life which informs the constellation
of Aquarius. Even if Aquarius (as a constellation is named for convenience
or as a mnemonic device), a Life informs these stars as a whole.
“They function, in a peculiar sense, as linking intermediaries
between the Logos of our solar system and the informing Life of the
constellation Libra.” (R&I 267)
Thus as well for, Libra.
“Creation—Being—Activity—Strife—Synthesis, these are the nature
of the Lord of the first constellation and enable Him to influence our
planet to these results.” (EA 92)
“Aries begins the process and is the "initiator of the process
which leads to progress" and—at the end of the age (as it is now
at the final or seventh initiation)—the Initiator of the Mysteries will
work under instructions and with energies which emanate from the Lord
of the Constellation Aries.” (EA 302)
Here we are speaking of the Lord of the constellation
Aries. So it (and many other star groupings) must be more than arbitrary
mnemonic devices.
“A steady recollection of the twelve basic energies [Page 85]
(five major and seven minor which are in reality, and apart from astral
reversion due to the Great Illusion, seven major and five minor) will
be of value. These work out into human expression via the Lords
of the twelve signs and the twelve planetary Rulers.” (EA 82-85)
Probably, when you speak of constellations as being arbitrary divisions,
categorizations or pictures, you do not mean the agreed-upon constellations
which are included in the Zodiac of Twelve. Nevertheless, it is important
to include the above reference to show that the constellations are entified.
Of course we could argue here that DK means exactly “signs” and not
“constellations”, but you and are I are both so familiar with the interchangeability
of these terms, that I think we can accept their equivalence in this
case.
7.
Does the contiguity
(relative nearness) of stars in space suggest their physical and metaphysical
association and group-cooperation? Five of the seven major
stars of the Great Bear are apparently moving in the same direction.
The Pleiadian cluster has stars which exist in very close proximity.
Are these time-space relations significant as indicators of metaphysical
and cooperation?
8. What
are the implications to the fact that our Sun belongs to a constellation
of seven solar systems? (cf. EA p. 50 and 267) In this question
I am not conceiving of the Sun belonging to a group of seven constellations.
I do mean solar systems.
9. What
are the star members of this constellation, which I call the SSSOWOIO?
With which chakras can they be reasonably associated? Thus
far (excluding the possible membership of Sirius), I include Alpha and
Beta Centauri, and Procyon. There is a star in Eridanus and maybe on
in Ceti (all very close to our Sun—I have to get my books to check).
There are, of course, a number of smaller brown and red stars quite
close to our Sun, but I do not count these stars as likely to be major
or likely to represent the seven principles (even though they may, technically,
be members of the constellation of which our Sun is a member).
10.
Is Sirius a member
of this constellation? Why or why not? If, yes, then why
is it listed separately on p. 50 of EA? If no, why is it so close to
our solar system, and to the stars within which our star is presently
associated.? This is a great question, and cannot lightly be
dismissed, even though functions for Sirius within a greater Logos are
understood to be quite different from those of our Sun, Sol.
11.
Is it possible for Sirius
to be a member of our local constellation, the SSSOWOIO, and yet have
a distinct function from the rest of the stars which are also members?
I ask this of us for many reasons, but also, in the back
of my mind, is the memory that the solar plexus center (of man at least)
has two points of light within it—one higher and one lover.
12. Why,
in your enumeration of constellational centers within the OAWNMBS, do
you ignore, overlook or discount the importance constellation to which
our Sun belongs? It is my contention that our Sun surely
belongs to a constellation. Thus far, it is my contention, that “stand-alone-solar
logoi” are very rare, and virtually an impossibility. Ever wheel is
a chakra, and every chakra (if it is a major chakra) demands six others
to be associated with.
13. What
is your reason for assigning our Sun as the destination of the Ray Path?
Do not all Cosmic Paths lead out of our solar system except for
one—the Path of Earth Service?
In IH S 188, we read the following, suggesting that though the sun is
involved in this Path, so are other destinations beyond our Sun
(yet, apparently, still on the same Path).
“Later again as his evolution progresses, he will pass to the sun; then
having mastered all connected with vibration in this system he will
pass to the cosmic system, going off his own ray (which is but a subsidiary
ray of one cosmic ray), on to the corresponding cosmic ray.”
“I may not here even indicate the type or quality of the intentions
of the ray Lords which the Master of the sixth initiation has to learn
to comprehend. The training given Him ends in another tremendous
decision which will place Him in a group of Lives on some sacred planet
or in some solar system which will be a correspondence to Shamballa
on our little planet. Shamballa embodies the will or purpose of
our planetary Logos. The goal which these initiates (trained on
the ray Path) eventually reach is some sphere of activity wherein sublime
purposes and divine intentions are worked out.” (R&I 221)
Apparently, upon the Ray Path, development is eventually
pursued in solar systems other than our own. (Of course, if for
some reason, the SSSOWOIO is involved in this Ray Path, then our Sun,
of course, could, along with six other solar logoi, be the recipient
of those who travel this Path).
12. On
the Chart (TCF 322), does the dotted line from the “causal body of our
solar logos” to one of the stars in the Great Bear, signify the prototype
relationship of this Great Bear star to our star? I note
it is the fourth star (the fourth triangle among seven triangles
which represent the Great Bear in this diagram).
15. Astronomically,
can you really place the Pleiades at the center of all zodiacal constellations
(the Zodiac of Twelve) and also at the center of the of ten of the Zodiac
of Ten?
a.
Astronomically, are not the Pleiades really “outside” the zodiacal
circle of 12? Are they not really beyond in light years the major
stars in Aries, Taurus, Gemini, (maybe also Cancer) and Leo?—which are
constellations which are seen when one looks in the general direction
of the Pleiades? And also, still farther beyond Sagittarius,
Scorpius, Libra (which are “in back” of the observer, as he looks towards
the Pleiades [thus, looking through Taurus and Gemini} in order
to see them)?
b. Does
the Zodiac of Ten revolve vertically to the Zodiac of Twelve?
This would seem to make sense, and I cannot see that it could be any
other way, as there are three circumpolar constellations (Great Bear,
Little Bear {which I include} and Dragon) and at least one and maybe
more southern constellations (Antares-Centaur, and Sirius {which is
quite southern})—and thus, their extension seems a North/South extension
rather than an East/West extension.
c. The
Rays revolve vertical to the planes. 10 and 5 are related to man and
manas; 12 and 6 are related to the devas; planes are devic; rays are
more man-related; I think it could fit. But if this cross (or two circles
revolving like a cross with respect to each other) defines
the motions of the two zodiacs with respect to each other, then in what
ways could it be said that any of the members of the Zodiac of Ten are
in the signs or constellations of the Zodiac of 12?
In short, the picture of the revolutions of the two circles with respect
to each other must be clarified. (I have conceived that a second type
of movement is also possible for each circle (one in which the whole
circle spins on is East-West axis as well as spins on its North-South
axis {the more normal movement}).
13. Will
a study of orbital mechanics and dynamics reveal rotational periods
for the Greater Seven according to the numbers presented in your theorization.
a. A
study of orbital mechanics in our solar system reveals, obviously, that,
with respect to the planets, the larger the orbit, the greater the orbital
period.
b. Using
the Law of Analogy, can we say that such orbital mechanics would apply
to solar systems revolving around their center and to constellations
revolving around their center. I tend to think so, but the numbers are
so great by comparison to planetary periods, and so little subject even
to the most modern observation.
c.In the
usual rotational scheme, those bodies which are closer to the center
revolve faster, or at least, complete their periods faster.
d. I have discussed
the problem that the Pleiades does not seem to be the center of the
wheel of the Zodiac of Twelve (which I explained in general). Even,
however, if it were the center, a special study of the rotational
movement of stars within constellations would have to be undertaken
so that we could find the speeds required of associated stars in order
for them to preserve their “relative distances”, or what I call, “constellational
integrity.
e. Those
stars in the Zodiac of Twelve which were closer to the center would
have to revolve faster than those stars which were further (even
if the closer and further stars were in the same constellation).
This might present certain problems which I can only hint at, but so
far am unable to discuss with real intelligence. Our studies should
make such discussion possible.
f. Whereas
you do no (as far as I know) specify a rotational period for the entire
Zodiacal Wheel of Twelve, you do propose orbital periods for
seven constellations which are part of the Zodiac of Ten (and presumably)
the major parts.
g. As I am
remembering these numbers: 1) 90,000 years for the seven Pleiades; 2)
150,000 years for Antares; 3) 250,000 years for our solar system;
2) 350,000 years for Orion; 5) 500,000 years for Sirius; 6) 700,000
years for Draco; and, I think, 1,000,000 for the Great Bear.
h. I believe that
the attempt to preserve these figures will violate almost all that we
know about orbital mechanics and dynamics. I say this because stars
relatively father from the center will have to travel faster than stars
relatively closer. Antares (very far from the Pleiades—perhaps 800 lys)
will have to travel faster than Sirius or our Sun, both of which are
at a distance of about 200 lys.
i. I am trying
to think about how this (and many other similar problems) can be overcome.
I am thinking about vertical rotation—a wheel of stars which are rotating
on a ‘circle’ (loosely a circle) which is perpendicular to the plane
of the Zodiac of Twelve. I am thinking, “Could the entire wheel revolved
at the same speed, thus preserving relative distances and constellational
integrity. BUT, if this were the case, some ‘outer’ stars of constellations
would have to travel very fast—faster, I think, than even possible.
(All this must be carefully studied)
j. Our problem is
this: 1) if stars travel around their center at speeds which are commensurate
with what we understand about orbital mechanics, it would not be long
before the constellations as we know them would fall apart, and
the now-associated stars would lose their present “relative distances”
and constellational integrity would be violated; 2) IF, however, we
sought to see the proposed circle of constellations in the Zodiac of
Ten revolving as if they were a wheel, all together, then the speeds
required by the outer stars (in order to keep the constellations together)
would be, I think, greater than allowable. At one point I checked this,
and determined that speeds pushing the speed of light were to be found.
I cannot confirm this; I must check it again.
k. When we
are dealing with single bodies like planets, revolving around their
center, we have no problem. The body is, as it were, alone, and does
not have to keep in any configuration with other bodies. The many changes
within our solar system (and which astrology studies) are based upon
such independent revolution.
l. However,
we several bodies must stay together in their revolution, we have a
real problem, for reasons stated above. The only solution to this problem
is to say that the Lord of a Constellation can work through groupings
of stars irrespective of where they are relative to each other.
While this might seem possible, the stars we identify as related are
all contiguous (more or less) in space.
m. Maybe star groupings
are very temporal, with stars entering and leaving groups just as people
do—over time. Perhaps the distances are so vast compared to speeds of
stars, that the associations which will one day dissociate, remain associated
long enough to be considered “qualitatively cooperative” as a constellation
for many years in the life of man or humanity.
n. Well, these are
all problems of perspective. From the geocentric perspective of our
little turning Earth, these problems do not appear, because the great
wheels are considered (from the Earthly perspective) relatively stationary
or “fixed”. But when we start talking about the turning of Great Wheels
(like the Zodiac of Twelve or the Zodiac of Ten) then new problems arise
which must be solved.
o. Am, I being clear
in at least delineating these problems? I hope so. Even though my grasp
of astronomy is still to inadequate too move very far in their solution.
12. Just
as planets have more than one ray, as do zodiacal constellations, do
the members of the Zodiac of Ten have more than one ray?
Almost certainly, this is the case. Then, if so, and we can identify
these rays (a big IF) what do these identifications tell us about
the function of these constellations? Some constellations) by analogy
are “sacred” (have taken the constellational equivalent to the fifth
degree—or whatever degree makes them sacred) and some are not sacred.
Presumably, there may be three synthesizing constellations (like
Uranus, Neptune and Saturn in the world of planets) the most advanced.
Then sacred constellations (corresponding to Vulcan, Mercury,
Venus, and to a degree, Jupiter), and some non-sacred. Sometimes I think
that Orion is to OAWNMBS what Jupiter is to our solar logos (and you
will know why). The Sagittarian connection supports it, and even Betelgeuse
(so big and transmitting, apparently R2 energy) can be related
to this idea.
15. Is
Venus the heart center within the solar logos or is Jupiter? OR, in
some way, are they both representatives of this heart center?
It may not be out of place to refer here to EP II 99, wherein
thee great Entities Who each express themselves through three planets
are mentioned. But the connections are enigmatical (in some cases) and
the possible application of this information is obscure.
16. Does
a planet’s chakric function within our present solar system really relate
to the monadic ray, or does it rather relate to the soul ray. Or do
planets have differing chakric functions, some according to the monadic
ray, some according to the soul ray, and even some according to the
personality ray? For instance, the Earth—P3, S2, M1. Is its
present function really relating to its R1 monad, or is that type of
functioning reserved for its next incarnation in the next (third/sixth
solar system)? Perhaps its present function is more splenic (relating
to the third ray and a little to its second ray soul—for the spleen
specializes solar vitality? Or could Earth and Venus form a pair,
with Venus definitely related to the solar solar plexus, and astrally
polarized Earth also be somehow involved in that solar plexus
interplay (which is at least dual) I think of Pollux (a single and a
giant) and Castor (which, as I understand it) consists of six stars
in three pairs!
17. In
what way do the seven head centers (which are not the three—crown,
ajna and alta major) relate to larger chakra system, and especially
to the seven for which they are the control centers.
How also do these seven head centers particularly relate to the crown
center?
18. In
what ways is a cluster of stars different, hierarchically, in
scope and power from a constellation of stars—if they are different?
Because I believe in preserving magnitudinal consistency when ascending
in any hierarchical system, I believe the clusters are more important
than normal constellations, just as, I presume “globular clusters”
are important within the physical and metaphysical hierarchy of the
galaxy.
19.
In what way is Alcyone “the central
spiritual sun”? In what way are the Pleiades to be considered the “central
spiritual sun”?
20. Is
the fact that the Pleiades are a cluster relate it to the fact
that it can be considered the “central spiritual sun”? Alcyone
is such a Sun for our Sol, but I believe the Pleiades (as a whole) are
such a ‘Sun’ for the larger system.
21. Given
that (in man at least) the thousand petalled lotus is thousand
petalled, whereas all other chakras have nowhere near this number of
petals, should there be an astronomical structure of sufficient size
and intensity (greater than that of other related astronomical structures)
to represent this greatest lotus? Behind my question is the
question of whether a star cluster is perhaps necessary to represent
this 1000 petalled lotus within the anatomical structure of the OAWNMBS.
22. When
considering the “orders” of solar logoi (ours being of the fourth order
and Betelgeuse being of the second order), what to these order numbers
really mean? Are they to be related to hierarchical
development; to monadic ray? Externally, are their correlations with
color (spectral type), with size and temperature?
23. Whereas
solar logoi apparently have orders, do constellations also have order
numbers?
22. Can
it be that the truth about Orion is much blinded because of the danger
of meditating upon it?
“Those who tread this second Path work with magnetic or attractive
energy because they have identified themselves with it. Eventually
they will all pass on to Path VII, which is the Path of Absolute Sonship.
All that can be said here in regard to their efforts is the statement
that this Path carries them (through the medium of the logoic head centre)
into the Heart of the ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID. They
are swept out of systemic evolution altogether upon a great tide of
attractive energy which emanates from one of the major centres of that
great Existence Who is the source of the life of the solar Logos.
This centre is of course one of [Page 1250] the seven constellations.
As it is the most potent constellation as far as our system is concerned
owing to the fact that this system predominantly expresses love or attractive
energy and our Logos is as yet polarised in His cosmic astral body,
it is not permitted to hint at the name of the constellation.
The reason is that if the name were known and if enough people could
do the work of occult meditation and visualisation, accompanying the
work with a vivid imagination, it might be possible to attract into
our system such a downpour of attractive energy from the constellation
involved as to unduly speed up the processes of evolution upon our planet,
and thus upset the systemic economy most dangerously. People do
not yet realise the potency of meditation and especially of group meditation.”
(TCF 1229-1250)
There is a great mystery here and I feel that Betelgeuse is indirectly
involved. I know that Libra “is involved” as DK has said in R&I.
But reading above, it is clear that Libra is (though importantly involved)
is not the constellation which is “one of the major centres in
that great Existence Who is the source of the life of the solar Logos.”
Also, Libra is not the “most potent constellation as far as our
system is concerned…”. I believe I remember that you theorized that
this system was Antares, but my present thought on this subject leads
me to other (though as yet not entirely consolidated) conclusions.
25.
Are there ten constellations in the Zodiac of Ten? Seven
major constellations are always discussed and it is hard to find more
than seven (of that exalted magnitude) to fill the role of chakras within
the Super-Constellational Logos. But the analogy from our planetary
system suggests that, though there are only seven major sacred planets
(including the synthesizing planets) the major chakras in our solar
Logos demand more than these seven planets, especially because
some of the major chakras are in or around the head. There is also the
possibility that more than one planetary scheme may participate in the
manifestation of a given solar Logoic chakra.
The analogy from our solar system and its planets, tells us that non-sacred
planets must be involved in the chakra system of our solar logos. Perhaps
this is also true of the SSSOWOIO and also the OAWNMBS. Many are the
extra planets in our solar system; many may be the extra stars (brown,
red, dim, whatever) in our “own” constellation (the SSSOWOIO), and,
as well, many may be the participating constellations in the OAWNMBS
(level 2, as you know I call the SSSOWOIO a level-1 OAWNMBS). Probably
the galaxy is a level-3 or level-2 OAWNMBS.
26. There
are 12 basic energies in all (EA 85). With which sign of the zodiac
is each of these 12 energies associated? There are
seven from the Great Bear (transmitted through the Little Bear); two
from Sirius and three from the Pleiades. Presumably each of these twelve
is associated with a particular sign of the zodiac.
“A steady recollection of the twelve basic energies [Page 85]
(five major and seven minor which are in reality, and apart from astral
reversion due to the Great Illusion, seven major and five minor) will
be of value. These work out into human expression via the Lords of the
twelve signs and the twelve planetary Rulers.” (EA 82-85)
Incidentally, again, we have the “Lords of the twelve signs” (i.e.,
constellations), which means to me that constellations (though named
and classified as such by the feeble mind of man) have a deeper esoteric
integrity behind their apparent external structure. If these stars were
not relatively together in space, they would not be identified as constellations;
and the “Lords” do work through these constellations.
Back
MR: I believe it is profitable to bring the Sun to the natal
ascendant. AAB with a 9 degree Leo natal ascendant should have the
Sun advanced to the same degree, and all planets and points advanced
to their respective degrees. The Sun sign is a subset of the Ascendant.
PL: OK, I was interested to get this feedback re the presentation
of such
charts. It means then that the outer life can be seen on the inner wheel
an
the inner life on the outer wheel.
MR: Unless I am missing something, where we put these wheels
on paper makes very little difference. In the Solar Fire format, the
natal chart usually has its house cusp degree numbers on the outer wheel,
but its planetary positions on the inner wheel. The solar chart would
then, in terms of appearance, be the outer wheel, or the second circle.
I think the important thing is to consider the natal chart as the subjectively
inner wheel.
To the best of my recollection, Stephen Pugh and others when approaching
one type of superimposition, simply contrast the natal chart with solar
chart using equal houses, and there is much to be learned thereby. For
instance, if my 10 degree Aries Sun were at the cusp of the first house,
then my Venus in 12 Taurus would be in the second house (as contrasted
with the 11th house position in the natal chart), and my Saturn and
Uranus (8+ Gemini and 1+ Gemini respectively) would be almost into the
third house, etc.(in contrast with the 11th house position in the natal).
SP says that such a solar chart represents the personality life in a
way which the natal chart does not (though of course he recognizes that
the natal chart also has much to say about the personality). Of
course it would be best to let him speak for himself in these matters.
The kind of super-imposition we are now attempting is something different,
and more strange in a way. It has to be researched to make sure we are
really learning something, and not just imposing our expectations on
a new chart form.
PL: One major question I have is how relevant are the planetary
positions
after they are all advanced by the same arc as the Sun to the Ascendant?
What reasoning can we apply to their significance? For instance in the
AAB charts, inner chart (IC) Jupiter is conjunct outer chart (OC)
Pluto. IC Neptune conjunct OC Sun.
MR: Certainly the aspects are significant, as probably, also
the house
positions. Research will tell whether the sign position means anything.
Really, we are looking for geometrical alignments rather than qualitative
changes. But still, these qualitative changes could be considered and
their
indications fathomed--as long as we do not read too much in.
PL: If we are to gain some sort of interpretation about the inner
and outer
lives, the symbolism is certainly apt, but what is the reasoning and
rationalisation behind doing such a thing? Unless we have a true occult
understanding as to why it is relevant, then our understanding will
only be
mystical at best. Do you know what I am getting at here?
MR: I get it. Perhaps the greatest symbolism is the alignment
of the
personality (Sun) with the soul (indicated at least somewhat by the
Asc.) If these two are in alignment (as eventually they must be) what
else much be *done* to help bring this about. Maybe other planetary
connections caused by the revolution of the wheel by the appropriate
arc will tell us of energy manipulations towards which we must strive,
or which would appear once the Sun and Asc. were in alignment.
PL: My understanding of moving the Sun to the Ascendant
is about looking at the potential of fusion of soul and personality.
MR: Yes, I think so.
PL: So are we to regard all the other planetary arc movements
in a similar
symbolical manner? For such an important revelation of being shown the
inner and outer lives, how can such a thing be so? Is there some deeper
astronomical or other reason behind the symbology?
MR: I think it's worth a look, for the reason offered
above. I don't think we are going to find the reason in astronomy, unless
its some kind of "inner astronomy" represented in rotations
and alignments of vehicles. How must the personality vechicles "turn"
in relation to the turning or rotatry motion of the causal body. All
these vehicles are, after all, turning, which reflects astronomical
cycles. But we are venturing into the unseen here--yet I feel the key
is there to be found.
PL: Another question also arises - is this the type of superimpostion
to which DK was referring?
MR: We are going at superimposition in a rather technical way.
However, what about superimpositing one *quality* upon another *quality*,
in an hierarchical manner. What happens if I superimpose love on greed?
Or luminous intelligence upon anxiety? In a way, all higher qualities
are to be superimposed hierarchically upon lower qualities. The higher
then order and command the lower and alter their expression. So I think
there is a king of psychospiritual superimposition of the meaning of
a superior chart upon the meaning and tendencies of a lower chart, with
the purpose of correcting or modifying the expression of the lower.
As one example, what happens if I superimpose (qualitatively) my Cancer
Asc. on my Aries Sun. Do I not become more sensitive, and more caring
about repercussions. Do I not "push forward" (Aries) with
"consideration" Cancer--etc.
I would suggest that as a mental psychological discipline, we simply
experiment with qualitative super-imposition.
Probably, technical, geometrical superimpostion implies a qualitative
superimposition. Always in superimposition there should be hierarchicalization--I
think.
MR: I believe the birth chart should always be considered an
"inner wheel". The Sun sign chart (advanced by the arc separating
the natal Ascendant from the natal Sun, should be considered an outer
and secondary wheel, as it is built up around the Sun sign, and therefore
refers
(initially) to the personality. One can also simply consider the Sun-sign
degree as an Ascendant, and find other houses by an equal house system
numbering from the Sun sign as Ascendant.
PL: When you say 'built up around the Sun sign' does that mean
then that it equates with point 6. in EA513?
MR: Yes, in a way. Any Sun-centered chart is built up around
the Sun. This "built up" terminology could indicate simply
a solar chart (sunrise chart) OR it could mean that the Sun and its
exoteric rulers would simply be considered the most important factor
in an ordinary chart. The Rising Sign would then be emphasized in a
more personal or material sense (as it seems to function in the life
of a child--physically)
PL: This is what I am addressing in my 'reply # 3' because there
seems to be some confusion about this. Point 6 is talking about 'adequate
for ordinary humanity'.
If it does relate to point 6, then what does the horoscope for Point
7 look like? Just with the rising sign which dictates where the sun
and other planets fall by sign and house?
MR:
Yes, I believe so. Just an ordinary chart, with the Asc. and its esoteric
ruler emphasized over the Sun and its orthodox ruler. As well, in such
a chart, if one wanted to emphasize soul indications over personal indications,
one could take the obvious step of contrasting the esoteric and exoteric
rulers of the houses--their signs and aspects.
Probably illuminating indications could be gathered in the ordinary
natal chart by contrasting the sign ruler of every planetary position.
For instance, if my Mars were in Cancer, I might contrast the Moon (its
sign,
house and aspects) with Neptune (its sign house and aspects). This might
show subtle spiritual reinforcements to the Mars position as compared
with the more ordinary associations.
PL:
A. As given in EA513-2 - horoscopes "built around the Sun sign"
and "built up around the rising sign".
B. As given in EA59-60 - Conception chart and birth chart.
C. As given in TWM 239 - physical, astral and mental charts:"geometry
of the individual". Similar to Point B.
PL: Point A: In EA513 : "6. The horoscope,
built around the Sun sign, is adequate for ordinary humanity. The exoteric
planets rule and the man lives within the limitations of the twelve
houses."
When DK says "The horoscope built around the Sun sign" - does
he mean just an ordinary horoscope? I think we have always assumed that.
Is there anything to be read into "built around the Sun sign"
? Or is he just speaking figuratively, i.e. that the focus is just on
the Sun and exoteric rulers?
MR: As stated in the previous email, solar charts can be used
(sun degree
equals Asc. degree); or the ordinary horoscope can be interpreted
with
special attention to the sun degree, sign, house, and aspects, as well
as the
orthodox ruler of sun--its degree, sign, house and aspects. So he could
mean the solar chart, and also be speaking, as you say, "figuratively"
PL: In EA513-2: "7. The horoscope built up around the rising
sign, with the esoteric planets ruling, will convey the destiny of the
disciple. As I told you, the disciple will later be responding to the
influences of the twelve arms of the three Crosses as they pour their
influences through the esoteric planetary rulers via the twelve houses."
When DK says "The horoscope built up around the rising sign",
is he talking figuratively, i.e. the focus is on the rising sign and
esoteric rulers?
Or is he talking about the Sun/Asc arc? Is there anything else to be
read into "built up around the rising sign"?
MR: For me, at this time, I would take the Asc. as the dominating
energy (in the highest place--hierarchically), and subordinate all other
enegies to it. It would then be the central focus, and in a way,
would be (figuratively) superimposed upon all other energies in the
horoscope.
PL: If he is talking about the Sun/Asc arc, then would that mean
we go back and approach point 6 in a different light?
MR: It seems that the use of the Sun/Asc arc is only useful if
working with a bi-wheel configuration. I cannot see the value of interpreting
the natal chart by adding the Sun/Asc arc to all factors in the
natal chart and
treating this new chart as if it were an independent chart. I can see
the value of arc-adding only in relation to the original natal chart
(unless we were focussing on internal charts--another matter).
PL: EA512: "8. The Sun sign, governed by the ruling
esoteric planets and the rising sign governed also by the esoteric planets,
can both be used in casting the horoscope of the initiate; when superimposed
upon each other, the outer life of the initiate in the three worlds
and the inner life of
subjective realisation will appear. This mode of super-imposition will
be a feature of the new astrology."
What does this actually mean? Are we on the right track by simply moving
the Sun to Ascendant position?
MR: No easy answer here.
1. The simplest way is to compare and contrast the degree, sign, house
and aspects of the esoteric ruler of the Asc. with the degree, sign,
house and aspects of the esoteric ruler of the Sun sign. As well the
Sun and Asc (pure and simple) should be compared and contrasted--as
well as the rays transmitted through their signs.
2. However, what about "planet(s)"--in the plural? Because
the "outer life of the initiate in the three worlds" is mentioned,
it looks like the house position is very important. House position
can also tell much about the inner life, as anyone will realize when
the *esoteric* meanings of the houses are used.
3. One can simply by arc move the Sun to the Asc, but then the rulers
all change, don't they? This gets back to your question of whether
the new sign position of the arc-moved planets counts for anything.
Moreover, with the change in sign of the Sun (as it is arc-moved to
the natal Asc), the esoteric ruler of the Asc and the new Sun position
become the *same*--not very good for contrasting.
2.
Arc-movement I think is good for showing possible soul-personality alignments
which can be worked upon and finally achieved. I think it may give *a*
formula for soul-personality alignment--not *the* formula.
5.
If we want to retain the Sun in its original position and all planets
in their original positions, and still have *two* charts to compare
and contrast (and thus to superimpose--the greater upon the lesser),
then we could again produce a solar chart. Make the Sun position house
number one and create equal houses.
Then, go house by house and position by position always using *esoteric*
planets. In my own case, the higher order chart at the first house would
show the Neptune esoteric ruler of the Asc. in the third house almost
conjunct the IC.
This
would be superimposed upon the esoteric ruler of my solar-Aries Asc--Mercury--and
Mercury would be slightly in the 12th H, just four degrees from the
Asc.
Perhaps
then, I could also look for the esoteric ruler of the Nepune sign (Libra),
which would be Uranus in Gemini in the 11th, and the esoteric ruler
of Mercury in Aries, which is Mercury itself in the 12th of the Solar-Asc.chart.
I could then go from house to house doing the same, comparing, contrasting
and basically superimposing (or making more important) the esoteric
rulers and positions of the natal chart upon the esoteric rulers and
positions of the solar chart.
The
advantage of this system would be that the signs would remain as they
actually are. House cusps, house cusp rulers and the position of house
cusp rulers would all change.
I
wonder, when using a solar chart, whether a person should be a *personality*.
If the person were not yet a personality, much might be learned by putting
the Moon as the first house cusp--I think as Zach has suggested.
PL: Point 8. seems to be talking about combining the horoscopes
of points 6. and 7.
If DK is talking about advancing the Sun to the Ascendant in point 7.,
then points 6, 7 & 8 are respectively: ordinary birth chart, Sun
to Asc chart, and the combination of both? This seems to be critical
in understanding the sequence of points given.
MR: When the horoscope is built up around the Rising Sign,
I think it is the ordinary natal chart, using esoteric rulers.
I suggest the following:
1. Point 6 could be, a): the ordinary birth chart emphasizing
the exoteric rulers, and especially the exoteric ruler of the
Sun as well as the Sun degree, sign, house position and aspects;
b) the solar chart alone (Sun as the Asc) using exoteric rulers
of all houses. Obviously, the position of these rulers would be
different (almost always) than the exoteric rulers of the natal
house cusps.
2. Point 7 could be the normal astrological chart, interpreted
by means of analyzing the degrees, signs, house positions and
aspects of the esoteri rulers.
3. Point 8 could be: a) the use of the natal chart with esoteric
rulers of house cusps and planetary sign positions, contrasted
with the solar chart, also with esoteric rulers of house cusps
and planetary sign positions; or, b) a biwheel with the Sun advanced
to the Asc. degree and all planets advanced by the same arc. I do not,
however, think that this is what the Tibetan means for us to do in point
8 (as revelatory as this technique may be). The rulership system is
thrown off if we advance the Sun to the Asc and all planets by the Sun/Asc
arc. What may be revealed are new alignments (as I have suggested in
this document and the two earlier ones written today). I think it is
very valuable to work in this way, but I am not sure DK means this in
point 8.
This gets back to Phillip's original question about the validity of
the new sign positions created by arc-advancement. We would have to
very careful here. Obviously, the individual was not born with these
arc-advanced positions. Does he have them or not? Qualitatively, I would
say "No". However any strong and tight aspects caused by arc-advancement
might show desirable relationships between faculties (i.e.,planets)
within the human energy system. Just as we all strive to make
the Sun a subset of the Asc., so we might strive to make a certain planet
in the Sun-advanced chart a subset of a natal planet.
As I have said before, however, it is possible to superimpose qualitatively
without the technical arc-geometry.
PL: EA512: "9. When the Sun sign, with the exoteric
rulers, is worked out in a chart, the rising sign with the esoteric
rulers is also worked out and the two are superimposed upon each other,
the problem of the disciple in any one incarnation will appear."
This
seems to be employing the same techniques as point 8. except the focus
is on different rulerships.
MR: I agree.
PL: Point B:
If in Point A the inner/outer charts are the birth and Sun to Asc charts,
how is that read differently from the conception and birth charts being
the inner and outer charts?
MR: When dealing with the conrast between the conception chart
and birth chart (forgetting the animation chart for the moment), I would
prefer to keep them distinct.
Yes, something might be learned by bringing the natal chart Sun (the
natal chart now being the *inferior chart*) to the conception Asc. and
advancing all planets accordingly, but the technique seems rather too
complicated, or too technical.
I
would simply go house by house--checking:
1. the esoteric ruler of all houses in the conception chart with the
esoteric rulers of all houses of the natal chart. This would be for
initiates of the first three degrees, and especially for those of the
second and third degree.
2. the esoteric ruler of all houses in the conception chart with
the *exoteric* rulers of all houses of the natal chart. This would be
for aspirants and disciples.
3. Perhaps the exoteric rulers of the conception chart houses could
be used for average man--but it still remains to be shown how much the
average man responds to his conception chart (which, according to theory)
is a Uranian chart. The birth chart with exoteric rulers would be far
more useable for the average man, I think.
2.
One other interesting possibility would be to forget the Sun sign
altogether when dealing with conception/natal comparisons, and advance
the natal Asc. to the conception Asc. It is my opinion that a *higher
order* of soul-directive would be shown by the conception Asc. than
is shown at the natal Asc.
Of
course, one must make sure that one has a legitmate conception chart;
one that is rectified against life events (perhaps life events of a
more psychological nature--though outer events, too, seem to show
in the conceptionand animation charts.
I
recommend Niklas' thoughts on these matters, as he has investigated
the subject more than I.
In my own case, for instance, I am working with a Leo Asc. in the conception
chart, and also a Leo Asc in the animation chart. The birth chart shows
a Cancer Asc (which is correct as far as my physical brith is concerned).
I must ask myself about the spiritual importance of that Leo conception
Asc. Is it hierarchically superior to my Cancer Asc.? In many ways,
I would say "Yes". All my major work has been on theories
of *Identity*--the ray books and also the Infinitization of Selfhood.
Even my work in astrology is about *Identity*. Further, the astrological
operas have a lot of connection with the stage and Leo.
But it is for everyone to decide whether there is any value in conception
charts, and whether they learn something interiorly about themselves
from their use. Then each person might ask, how would my life be different
if my natal chart were subordinated to my conception chart. This would
be a psycho-spiritual superimposition, and would have, I think, as much
validity as the more technical methods upon which we are now working--not
to discount the possible revelatory nature of the latter.
There are many implications when considering the Sun, Moon Asc. relationships
which produce the conception chart. The Moon position of the natal chart
becomes all important in determining the Asc. of the conception chart.
What is most important is not to get lost in technique. The new astrology
is an intuitive astrology, using the various techniques as springboards
for insight. I fear getting lost in the trees--I want to see the
forest as a whole.
Still,
experimentation is needed. I suggest that if we want to know the value
of any of these techniques, we study our own charts and share any psycho-spiritual
revelations that may have come with the group. If the
revelation could have been seen in an easier way, then the Law of Economy
is against the great labor required to produce these additional
charts. If, however, new insights appear (which did not appear in any
other way) they we know that our labors have been worth-while.
Back
|