Two Questions (Oct 18, 2008)

About Me Forums Astrology Two Questions (Oct 18, 2008)

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1580
    Michelle Young
    Keymaster

    Abhishek* DwivediOct 18, 2008
    Two Questions
    First: What does one mean when one says – “afflicted planet”? Does that make sense in relation to one’s Sun sign? For example – if my sun is in cancer but some other planets are located in air or fire signs then can I say that these are “afflicted”?

    Second: This is about Pan Horus and Vulcan. Will they begin to rule Taurus and Virgo (respectively) only after they will be found? Does it sound reasonable? How do they come to know whether they have been found by us?

    Michelle Astrology dp Michelle YoungOct 18, 2008
    Hi Abhishek,

    I’m going to reverse your questions for ease in answering:

    Second: This is about Pan Horus and Vulcan. Will they begin to rule Taurus and Virgo (respectively) only after they will be found? Does it sound reasonable? How do they come to know whether they have been found by us?

    If you check with Matrix Software, you’ll find Pan Horus, “Pan,” is one of Saturn’s moons. According to Astrodienst, Pan is an asteroid. Neither recognizes Pan (Pan Horus) as a planet. Although I’ve seen other sites discuss “Pan Horus” as a planet, the International Astronomers Union doesn’t appear to recognize it as a planet or even as a planetoid, nor does any site with a prominent focus on Western astrology seem to do so. I saw some of the Tarot sites make such declarations, but nothing that would cause my eyes to open a bit wider as your question has done. 🙂

    As for Vulcan, this is one of the TNPs, a supposed undiscovered planet–if not undiscovered, at least hypothetical.

    Many astrologers may find my thoughts a bit alarming here, but perhaps they’ll be simultaneously reassuring to others. I find some of these so-called declarations something along the lines of faddish. I think there’s quite enough to concern oneself with in the study of astrology without bringing in hypothetical or undiscovered celestial bodies, but then I also think we have quite enough to concern ourselves with in terms of basic astrology. If one studies the foundations well enough, the likelihood that one might find the need to explore more than 16000 asteroids for consideration in this study is diminished.

    I don’t mean to put down anyone who works with asteroids or TNPs, for example, but while such explorations are done, it’s extremely important to keep a firm grasp on the foundations of astrology because here is where the heart of this field is. There are so many people who would debunk astrology as fraudulent because of TNPs and the like. Why give them more fodder?

    [more]

    Michelle Astrology dp Michelle YoungOct 18, 2008
    So rather than focusing on the “what if” of an undiscovered or hypothetical TNP, or one of Saturn’s moons, or one of the asteroids (why one versus another, and why Pan rather than one of the Centaurs?), why not worry about the reality first?

    Anyone can be a dilettante and know a little about a lot of astrology but not enough to be more than a mere danger with that “little about a lot of” knowledge of astrology. Better that one knows what one knows, and knows it well, so there is a stable foundation from which one can grow. 🙂

    I hope that answers the question.

    First: What does one mean when one says – “afflicted planet”? Does that make sense in relation to one’s Sun sign? For example – if my sun is in cancer but some other planets are located in air or fire signs then can I say that these are “afflicted”?

    For many years, astrologers have “insulted” people about their charts with words like “affliction,” “detriment,” “fall,” “debilitated,” and so on…oh yes! Weak is another goodie! Since the beginning of my students (a kazillion years ago perhaps 🙂 ), I questioned the sensibility of those who would place such labels on planets and their aspects, just as I did those who placed labels like “exalted” on other planets. I don’t know who put these labels on the planets, whether they felt it was conducive to better understanding, but I have found them to be limiting that understanding and, at times, even harmful to the learning process.

    Each chart must be considered as an individual chart for understanding of the native. You can’t limit the understanding of any of the components by declaring a position by house or sign or aspect bad because you deprive yourself and the native of better, clearer understanding when you do that. Your own chart may color the way in which you are seeing the native, resulting in a misinterpretation or a skewed forecast.

    [more]

    Michelle Astrology dp Michelle YoungOct 18, 2008
    I’ve said a few times in this community, I think, that what you may think is a negative in your own chart, for example, can be the very thing that propels you to your greatest achievement.

    A person with Mars in hard aspect to Saturn, for example, may have suffered through some kinds of abuses in his/her life, may have the ability to make some pretty amazing and difficult decisions in his/her life that others wouldn’t have the ability to make because of the fear of hurting oneself or others, and/or may be an incredible surgeon.

    A person with Pluto in hard aspect to the Sun may be a power monger, a dictator, a CEO–or a police officer/detective.

    The planet, Abhishek, can be in detriment or in fall, or it can be in some form of hard aspect (square, opposition, quincunx). That, in a nutshell, is what “afflicted planet” means. It won’t be because that planet might be in relation to the Sun sign. It’s a label that can misguide the individual and is probably best to avoid using to describe this particular aspect. As you can see by the two examples I gave above, what is “afflicted” in one case could indeed be a positive thing in another case.

    I hope that helps.

    #1581
    Michelle Young
    Keymaster

    Abhishek Abhishek* DwivediOct 20, 2008
    Thanks for your detailed explanation Michelle.

    1. On Pan Horus and Vulcan – Let’s approach my question differently. Was Pisces ruled by Jupiter till Neptune was discovered? Or was Pisces never really ruled by Jupiter? Was power transfer really happen? If it did, why can’t it happen again? If it did not, astrologers were wrong at a point of time. And they can be wrong again. 🙂

    They (Pan Horus and Vulcan) might not be planets. Even Moon is not a planet but a luminary. Being planet is not a necessary condition to influence the events. The powerhouse itself – Sun – is a luminary. Linda Goodman must have her reasons to believe what she did. I am curious to know what were they?

    Please don’t think that I am contradicting you. My knowledge about the subject is next to nothing. I am just curious; and since I am ignorant, I have nothing else to hold but logic. 🙂

    2. On afflicted planets – Don’t you think that there are some permutations of planets that tend to cancel one another’s effect, thereby making a person confused, and sometimes frustrated and guilty? I am not doubting Man’s (and Woman’s) will power. I am only talking about planetary influence here. The difficulty they create can certainly be overcome – I admit that. I am talking only about difficulty per se.

    Michelle Astrology dp Michelle YoungOct 20, 2008
    1. On Pan Horus and Vulcan – Let’s approach my question differently. Was Pisces ruled by Jupiter till Neptune was discovered? Or was Pisces never really ruled by Jupiter? Was power transfer really happen? If it did, why can’t it happen again? If it did not, astrologers were wrong at a point of time. And they can be wrong again. 🙂

    Jupiter is, even today, considered a ruler of Pisces, but it’s a secondary ruler rather than the primary one. Those who don’t work with the extraterrestrial planets will look at Jupiter as the ruler, and that’s fine as long as they are consistent in that reference then. They may see things based on Jupiter that will be significant–and enough–for them. Astrology is not simply broken down into Western and Indian. For example, in Western astrology, there are the modern astrologers and the ancient astrologers. Uranian astrology is yet another school of study in the West. Indian astrology, similarly, isn’t just Vedic. There’s also Nadi, and from what I understand of that field of study, there are two within Nadi alone.

    I don’t call that a “power transfer” at all. Nor do I think astrologers were wrong at that time. You need to consider each school of astrology and the one(s) to which they ascribed. I hope that explains it more clearly. 🙂 They (Pan Horus and Vulcan) might not be planets. Even Moon is not a planet but a luminary. Being planet is not a necessary condition to influence the events.

    Well, you and I disagree here with your statement, “Being [a] planet is not a necessary condition to influence the events.” I don’t believe planets or luminaries influence events at all. The energies that come into play are inside each of us–individually, as groups, and as a whole body we know as humanity. We have free will to create the events. This isn’t about fate. You might want to read the thread “Astrology – Myth or Reality” in the archives.

    #1582
    Michelle Young
    Keymaster

    Michelle Astrology dp Michelle YoungOct 20, 2008
    The powerhouse itself – Sun – is a luminary. Linda Goodman must have her reasons to believe what she did. I am curious to know what were they?

    Please don’t take this next comment as flippant. It’s not intended as such. I have never been a fan of Linda Goodman. While she was great from the marketing perspective of piquing the curiosity of people around the world, I feel she could have done more to wipe out the myths and stereotypes that her own brand of astrology (not school, brand) gave rise to.

    Given that I am, thankfully, not Linda Goodman, I can’t tell you what her reasons were. 🙂 I suspect a huge portion of what she was doing, however, had to do with marketing. It was simple for people to grasp and, therefore, quick to catch on. She didn’t really do a thing differently than pop astrological magazines have done since Sidney Omarr came on the scene as a 15-yo (I recall reading he was 15 at that time) around the time of WWII. I’m not trying to put her down, mind you, simply to shed light on her not having done much, if anything, differently than Sidney Omarr and other Sun sign fluff astrologers had done through the years.

    Please don’t think that I am contradicting you. My knowledge about the subject is next to nothing. I am just curious; and since I am ignorant, I have nothing else to hold but logic. 🙂

    Abhishek, I don’t mind contradiction especially when offered with mutual respect, and I value logic. 🙂 You’re not ignorant. Your questions are good and viable. I can’t promise to be able to answer each of them, but they make good fodder for thought–and discussion.

    [still more…]

    Michelle Astrology dp Michelle YoungOct 20, 2008
    2. On afflicted planets – Don’t you think that there are some permutations of planets that tend to cancel one another’s effect, thereby making a person confused, and sometimes frustrated and guilty? I am not doubting Man’s (and Woman’s) will power. I am only talking about planetary influence here. The difficulty they create can certainly be overcome – I admit that. I am talking only about difficulty per se.

    I think your wording here is coming at it in a way that sets us both up to fail in understanding and discussing the situation you’ve presented. Again, you’re stating that you’re talking about planetary influence. Since I believe there is no planetary influence entering into this, but rather our own evolving individual, group or collective energies, I don’t see how I can possibly answer this question to your satisfaction.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.