|
|
Post by kromedragon on Apr 9, 2009 4:55:43 GMT
I have heard on the internet that Astrology is an inexact science because the stellar sky, as seen from earth, changes yearly due to the fact that our solar system is moving in space, and the oribit of each individual globe in the solar systems wobbles elliptically. But this movement is incremental but present.
So apparently we need to account for the changes in the appearance of the stellar sky before doing the zodiac forecast. Infact the sky has changed tremendously as since the forecast chart was first drawn in ancient times. That it is grossly outdated.
Is any of this true?
Also there is some idea that there should be 13 zodiacs, the 13th one being introduced as Ophicus, the serpent bearer. The Ophicus is positioned between Libra and Scorpio on the zodiac.
Some say the 13th zodiac was arachne in nature. Is any of this true???
|
|
|
|
Post by paulh on Apr 9, 2009 5:05:24 GMT
Personally I tend to use astrology for confirmation rather than as a primary source. In my wanderings I sometimes run across stellar or planetary influences and having measured and interpreted as best I can, I then refer to traditional accounts, particularly Arab.
For example, I ran into a star (or it ran into me) called Mintaka. And having assessed its interest as best I could, I resorted to the Arab traditions to test my perceptions.
I am not at all sure that astrology as currently taught is sufficiently clear for spiritual work
Cheers
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Apr 10, 2009 13:44:57 GMT
I have heard on the internet that Astrology is an inexact science
You can say that again.
In fact the sky has changed tremendously as since the forecast chart was first drawn in ancient times.[...] Is any of this true?
Yes, it is. The wobbles of all the thousands of years since the Babylonians (or whoever it was first drew up the stellar tables) has added together and now Astrology's idea of the zodiac is out-of-step with the night sky as it really is.
Also there is some idea that there should be 13 zodiacs, the 13th one being introduced as Ophicus, the serpent bearer. The Ophicus is positioned between Libra and Scorpio on the zodiac.
Some say the 13th zodiac was arachne in nature. Is any of this true???
You really want to know? Nah, it's bunk. Astrology is all old, so if people want to sell new books about old Astrology, they have to give it a new spin.
My advice to you, kromedragon, is to read some books. Any books will do, to start with; but in time, you will learn to tell the good stuff from the BS. All it takes is time.
|
|
mgc
Member
Posts: 204 
|
Post by mgc on Jun 5, 2009 4:55:51 GMT
I am not at all sure that astrology as currently taught is sufficiently clear for spiritual work i find interplanetary relations most useful.. |
|
|
|
Post by fellowmark on Aug 2, 2009 18:38:35 GMT
I believe the previous content of this post of mine may be of relevancy only to a minority of readers; thus i have removed it (i still can forward it to whom requests it). My apologies. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Aug 8, 2009 18:23:17 GMT
Before you mess with the stars, it is well to become familiar with the PLANETS. To all intents and purposes, our solar system is a CLOSED system, and a lack of familiarity with the planetary powers which influence our lives intimately precludes any understanding of astrology in the least. If you are interested in "accurate" astrology then you must study 'sidereal" astrology, which takes into account the "inaccuracy" of the Zodiacal positionings. However, it is a curious fact that the "old" system still "works". I know; I follow it regularly and have observed this for myself! There is a lot that is inexplicable about astrology; retrogrades, f'r instance. Why the simple fact of a planet "appearing" to go backwards in the sky should have a marked effect on events has never been satisfactorily explained, but the fact is indubitable. Eclipses, as well. The simple fact of the Moon descending into Earth's shadow, or passing between the Sun and the Earth has a marked and profound effect, and nobody can explain why this should be so. I just finished reading David Ovason's book on eclipses; FASCINATING!
|
|
|
|
Post by paulh on Aug 8, 2009 21:15:34 GMT
To all intents and purposes, our solar system is a CLOSED system The EA TB would appear to indicate otherwise |
|
