13
I don't know how to argue with this post.

Not that I agree with it or find the logic unassailable. The problem is that your post relies so heavily on quotations from scriptures that it's virtually impossible to argue the points without making the same spiritual assumptions (or, even more fruitlessly, trying to tear your spiritual viewpoints apart). Most of the references are to Indian spirituality - while I respect and appreciate these worldviews, I do not share them. Thus saying that the Baghavad Ghita says this or the Vedas say that simply can't persuade me any more than the Jehova's Witnesses who periodically ring my doorbell on Sunday mornings. And I doubt I'd be able to persuade you to my viewpoint anyway, because since I use the outer planets to a degree and incorporate astrological psychology into my readings (along with traditional Western methods) I'm presumably a pesudo-astrologer.

As for those posts on the other forum you shared - I can't read the original language, but what's in English comes across as having been machine translated. It's the only way I can explain such statements as "But if Rh negative blood factor in Nakshatra born in Deva." Not at all conducive to even attempting discussion.

14
I believe the point "Eka" is attempting to make is that there is an "ideal astrology" as can be practiced only by Spiritual Masters and the astrology that as mere humans we ourselves practice. Ideal astrology is perhaps best noted by Yogananda's Guru, Sir Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi in Chapter 16, "Outwitting the Stars":
"Charlatans [This is India] have brought the stellar science to its present state of disrepute. Astrology is too vast, both mathematically and philosophically, to be rightly grasped except by men of profound understanding. If ignoramuses misread the heavens, and see there a scrawl instead of a script, that is to be expected in this imperfect world. One should not dismiss the wisdom with the 'wise.' "

How does this "ideal astrology" operate? An example from the text shows us our limitations as astrologers in comparison to a Master who practices astrology:

Sri Yukteswar counsels the young Yogananda:
"For general purposes I counsel the use of an armlet made of gold, silver, and copper. But for a specific purpose I want you to get one of silver and lead." Sri Yukteswar added careful directions.

"Guruji, what 'specific purpose' do you mean?"

"The stars are about to take an unfriendly interest in you, Mukunda. Fear not; you shall be protected. In about a month your liver will cause you much trouble. The illness is scheduled to last for six months, but your use of an astrological armlet will shorten the period to twenty-four days."

(...)Thirty days after our conversation, I felt a sudden pain in the region of my liver. The following weeks were a nightmare of excruciating pain. Reluctant to disturb my guru, I thought I would bravely endure my trial alone.

But twenty-three days of torture weakened my resolution; I entrained for Benares. There Sri Yukteswar greeted me with unusual warmth (...)

"You must have come about your liver disorder....Let me see; you have been ailing for twenty-four days, haven't you?"

"Yes, sir."

"Please do the stomach exercise I have taught you."

"If you knew the extent of my suffering, Master, you would not ask me to exercise." Nevertheless I made a feeble attempt to obey him.

"You say you have pain; I say you have none. How can such contradictions exist?" My guru looked at me inquiringly.

I was dazed and then overcome with joyful relief. No longer could I feel the continuous torment that had kept me nearly sleepless for weeks; at Sri Yukteswar's words the agony vanished as though it had never been.
To read the entire chapter from Autobiography of a Yogi:
http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chap16.php
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

15
i always stop reading these things when people think they are superior than others because they understand the "law" and have the "secret spiritual knowledge" that the others don't have.. Confused
BINGO!

I got about as far as this
As we know Astrology is a spiritual science and as a knowledge it always belonged only to the spiritual grade of people.
I think that most of the comments above are actually a little harsh, as astrology is surely open to personal interpretation. If we are in the Aquarian Age, as i personally think we are, than astrology must then be in the domain of Leo, in much the same way that she was in Virgo in the age of Pisces and was Libra in the Aries age. If astrology is now in the domain of Leo, where some careful consideration will lead you to your own conclusions, then it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that astrology is open to personal interpretation. That's because, in spite of the fact that many think they have all the right answers - and many of them regularly post on this site (and get it wrong so often) - and i include myself among that number, by the way - the subject that we are all dedicated to is simply beyond any one persons comprehension, even those with the massive egos (i'm sure you know who you are).

For my pennies' worth - this is how i describe astrology on my own website.

Most people tend to think that astrology is what they read in their news papers every day. But it is a much, much more complex and intricate subject than that. In fact, such is the complexity and depth of the subject, it might be easier to ask what astrology isn't. It's not reading tea leaves, gazing into crystal balls, fortune telling and it's certainly not some sort of manipulative con or parlour game as described by some 'scientific experts'. Astrology could be described as the craft or art of the study of life cycles, of time and the interrelatedness of the events in our lives and that of others. Astrology is, to put it quite simply, the correlation between the heavenly bodies and events here on earth. But that is not to say the the movements of the planets affect us directly: In the ordinary sense of the word 'Cause' the planets do not cause anything. When we talk about 'cause' we really mean what ancient philoshopy discipbes as 'efficient cause', that is to say something that makes something else happen. The planets are the hands of a clock that tells us of 'soul time', with respect to our location in the cosmos and what we call time. As human beings, we are connected to the World Soul or Gaia, which is conscious. As it is not possible to measure the world soul directly, we have to measure it indirectly by observing the movements of the planets, and as we are directly connected to the Anima Mundi, we also measure our own place within the cosmos. This concept is a little bit difficult for scientists to understand, as they do not believe that the human soul even exists, let alone the existence of a world soul or Anima Mundi.
Verum e

16
I stopped reading around that time too.

Is there a point to a post that few found directly interesting? Maybe. I'd say that the subject of astrology attracts some of the loopiest people you'll meet. This website is an exception, an island of sobriety in a sea of goofiness. I appreciate that. Deb and the rest can't be thanked enough for the serious work they do here, even more so because there is so much junk out there.

If there is so much junk out there, then what are we to do with the idea that astrology is only for the special few? Anyone on this forum can easily find people who are writing using the words and phrases of traditional astrology but who don't have a clue. Is it elitist and egotistical to note that?

Another issue that's out there is that the chain of teachers was broken hundreds of years ago. We may have Lilly and Bonatti in English but we don't have the unbroken tradition of lifetimes of experience being transmitted down. Do we have any real masters of astrology left? How would the best of today stack up against Al-Biruni or Lilly?
Mark F

17
MarkF wrote:Do we have any real masters of astrology left? How would the best of today stack up against Al-Biruni or Lilly?
I think David Cochrane, Ernst Wilhelm and John Frawley would stack up just fine, sir.
If it's not astronomically true, it's not astrologically true.