skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The Devine Shekinah and the Gauquelin Sectors
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
An Indian astrologer once told me that he used porphyry houses, just like I did, only the house cusp would be in the middle of the house the way I did it. So ASC would fall in the middle of the first house. I don't agree with this.


This is the Sripati system. Classical Indian astrology is based on ideas imported from the Hellenistic world but there do not appear to be any classical Sanskrit astrological texts in existence that even mention the Whole Sign Houses. Most of the texts that explicitly teach a method of domification favour the Sripati system, described by the author Sripati in his 'Jatakakarmapaddhati' (c. 1050 CE).

The main difference between the Sripati houses and the Porphyre houses is that in India the cusps are considered bhavamadhya or the centres of the houses. The cusp of the ascendant is the centre of the first house (i.e., from the midpoint of the twelfth cusp and the ascendant to the midpoint of the ascendant and the second cusp). The midpoint between two houses is known as a house junction or bhavasandhi.

The 'Brihatparasharahorashastra' (c. 600-800 CE) does not detail any one method of deriving the cusps, but it does contain passages which mention that the distance between two cusps is a variable factor, as with unequal house cusps. Gauquelin used Placidus...?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The g-sectors are constructed like this so the distributions peak in the middle of these sectors.

Thanks for correcting me and clarifying that. So the peaks would be

GS1 around 20° above the ascendant (in the 12th)
GS2 around 20° behind the MC (in the 9th house)
GS3 around 15° beneath the descendant (in the 6th)
GS4 around 15° before the IC (in the 3rd)

Am I correct that there is a gradual build up of prominence leading up to the peak, and a sharp decline after it? Or is it more the case that anywhere within these sectors the planets are expected to be strong in effect, and anywhere outside of them they are not?

Quote:
He explained that Mars had to be in a "weak" in order for the artistic sensibilities to emerge.


That does make some sense.

Quote:
I used Rudhyarist reasoning to argue that those Mars placements are just as "strong" as the g-sector Mars placements, only it produced outstanding musicians and artists, who effectively used the Mars for that purpose.


Perhaps. I’m not so drawn to that explanation.

Quote:
My point here is that Gauquelin's findings relate to houses and not just the angles.


I’m not sure that they do. At least I doubt it’s constructive to begin with that supposition. I’d much prefer to see a ‘scientific’ examination of natural astrology freed from the constraints of judicial elements such as houses, signs, dignities, etc, which are heavily impregnated by lore, divinational concepts, philosophical principles and symbolic reasoning. I know all that is part and parcel of the craft of astrology, and my experience is mainly within divinational branches of astrology, where the astrologer’s interpretation is key to unlocking the meaning of the chart, (hence personally I have a heavy reliance on the use of houses and such like). But still, I have never felt entirely at ease with the notion that these exist as external ‘realities’, or that the foundation of any central truth they hold is fully understood by the astrologers that use them. Why not do Gauquelin’s work full justice and explore it on its own merits? Just set aside what these house positions are supposed to mean, and consider its merits in terms of supporting the very ancient view that the fundamental planetary characteristics are defined by issues that relate to angularity, ascending or declining motion, visibility, orientality/occidentality, etc.

Quote:
I don't think astrologers should be trying to dismiss these results. Astrologers should be trying to explain them.


Yes, but more harm than good is done where we try to explain something we don’t yet fully understand. I still believe that Gauquelin is calling us to revaluate principles that were established through the simple observation that the Babylonians made, that planets which are angular are the most significant. The earliest roots of astrology were based upon observation and painstaking recording of data rather than philosophising, and what has been brought forward from Babylonian astrology into the mainstream tradition has proved to be a very firm root. The idea that planets which are rising and culminating are of leading significance, and those that are setting or declining are also significant, but less so, and those that are above the earth are more expressive than those under it, were all established long before we used the ecliptic as the means of measurement. I was wondering how this related to the division of local space, rather than ecliptic based measurement but I’m stuck for suggestions. The only thing I can say is that this numeration of houses really is a red herring. The reason they were numbered as we know them doesn’t contradict the underlying basis of diurnal motion; it supports it. Their numeration demonstrates the order that the stars within them rise over the ascendant and is related to the ancient practice of astronomers having two-hourly ‘watches’, where the first watch would monitor the stars in the first house rising over the ascendant, the 2nd watch those in the 2nd house, and so on.


Quote:
This sounds like the method of domification advanced by Johannes Vehlow and used in North Indian astrology. It is an equal house system with the 1st house cusp at 15 degrees before the ascendant. Is this the true system...?


Unfortunately any equal, or whole house system disassociates the 10th house from the MC. If you accept Gauquelin’s findings as significant, the MC has to be regarded as in some way pivotal.

You know, these sorts of discussions really stress me out!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re: Whole Sign Houses

Quote:

“While houses are very important in Vedic astrology, there is really only three in common use. The Whole Sign house system is probably the most widely used house system. In this system, the zodiac sign the ascendant falls in denotes the first house for that whole sign. The next sign is the second house; the next sign is the third house and so on. Apart from the ascendant, no house cusps are used.

"A variation to this is that of the Systems' Approach to Vedic astrology where the degree and minute of the ascendant is taken and is extended to the other signs. This is called the Most Effective Point (MEP) for that house.

"The other two house systems used in Vedic astrology are the Sripati house system and the Placidus house system (the one used in the west).

"The Placidus houses are only used in the Krishnamurti (KP) system. The Sripati house system (also known as the Hindu Bhava system) is like the Porphyry system used in western astrology (which will be explained in a later article) with the exception that the house cusps denote the centre of the house rather than the beginning of the house. This raises a good point - should we use house cusps as the beginning of a house or as the centre of a house?

“I know that in my tropical work, any planet that is within five degrees of the next house cusp, I usually interpret that as being more representative of the next house and so mentally move it there for analysis. This idea is not new as Ptolemy also made this suggestion but in the context that the beginning of the first house was five degrees earlier than the rising degree and thus for all of the other houses. The Gauquelin studies seem to also bear this idea out.”


Technical Tips 08: Houses & Cusps by Neville Lang.
http://www.vicastrology.net/ArticleNevilleLangTechTips8.htm

or ...

Quote:
“Whole sign houses -
As the name suggests, in this system, the whole sign is treated as the house. The rising sign itself becomes the first house, from its very beginning to its end. The next sign is the second and the next sign from the second becomes the third and so on. In other words, wherever the rising degree falls the entire sign, from 0 degree to 30 degrees, is the first house.

"The M.C. ( culminating degree or Midheaven ) may or may not fall in the tenth sign. The ancient Greeks and Vedics used this. Modern Vedic astrologers still use this predominantly.

"This was a popular, in fact the oldest House system that the ancients used originally. There is no evidence that prior to Ptolemy, any other house system existed other than the whole signs. In this simple system houses and signs are interchangeable. The controversy of the cusps is not relevant at all here.”


Article ‘Enigma of the Houses” by Dr Satya Prakash Chowdary

For classical references perhaps contact Neville Lang at VAA (Australia) or John Frawley who also makes reference to this in his "The Real Astrology Applied."

Kind regards,
TS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3464
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Gauquelin always supported astrology. I asked him about how he got into astrology, and here is the story based on what he told me.


I don't know what he said, but none of his original published works supports your story or the story you say he told you.

"Gauquelin published his statistics in 1955 in, L'influence des Astres (Denoel)," repeatedly maintaining that his results did not validate astrology at all but rather another, hitherto nameless celestial influence having nothing to do with astrology, which was like contending that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, but by someone also named William Shakespeare, who happened to be living at the same time and in the same place."

The Case for Astrology, by John Anthony West & Jan Gerhard Toonder Penguin books 1970 Suffolk, Great Britian. (p. 165)

He didn't write in English so I have to rely on secondary sources. Toonder and West cite several instances of Gauquelin's "violent anti-astrology bias." (p 167)

to wit: "These results (i.e. the miliatry leaders statistics I alluded to plus his studies on athletes - tc) were duly published in the second book, Les Hommes et les Astres, in which Gauquelin with redoubled ferocity insisted that his evidence was not evidence for astrology: 'There is not one point of rapport from a strictly scientific point of view, between the structure of the results obtained and still less between the spirit with which my statistics are obtained and astrology.' "

[Toonder and West p 169 citing Les Homes et les Astres, Denoel, p. 16]

I find it hard to believe that pro astrology Toonder and West made this up.

When this book was published in 1970, Gauquelin was still maintaining that his work did not validate astrology.


Quote:
Do you believe that astrology works? If your answer is yes, then how do you know it works?


This is the sort of thing that could drive a sane man crazy. In order for me to believe astrology works I must adopt your worldview, which of course is the only correct worldview since science is the final arbiter of all truth. This is frankly ridiculous. How do you know anything? In point of fact just about the only thing we can "know" is that we exist. "I think, therefore I am." Anything else is perception or faith (or both?). Do you "know" that World War I ended on Nov 11, 1918? No you rely on what you've read that you choose to believe. Do you "know" what you had for breakfast? Not really. You're relying on your memory and any attorney can tell you that won't hold up in court against any good cross examination. Statistics and "science (which is only a method until it is elevated to the status of religion)" are not the only valid beliefs. How do you "know" gravity works? There certainly isn't any known mechanism to explain it. Do you "know" that the earth revolves around the Sun or do you accept others' word for it? You "know" that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, but ignore the fact that 2 out of 3 smokers never contact the disease? It isn't hard to go on and on an on.

If I were to rely on statistics or mechanism for my belief that astrology works I would surely be hard pressed to defend myself. There isn't enough legitimate scientific evidence of the validity of astrology to convince an advocate, much less a skeptic. Astrology is part of a worldview that fell out of favor. It is a philosophical belief, and perhaps a religious one, that does not require the god of statistical analysis or the imagined "omnipotence and infallibility" of "science" for acceptance. Everything is connected. That's why astrology works.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sungem



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 206
Location: Australia

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Everything is connected. That's why astrology works.


This I believe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How do you know anything? In point of fact just about the only thing we can "know" is that we exist. "I think, therefore I am." Anything else is perception or faith (or both?).


Exactement!

Quote:
Astrology is part of a worldview that fell out of favor. It is a philosophical belief, and perhaps a religious one, that does not require the god of statistical analysis or the imagined "omnipotence and infallibility" of "science" for acceptance.


Please see:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/paradigms/ways_of_knowing.htm

"Science in itself is simply an experimental method for understanding physical reality. It works by offering hypotheses than can be falsified. It is a superb methodology for understanding the physical universe, but not really very good for appreciating non-physical things."

My understanding surrounds the truth of things,
And my truth is mixed up in me,
And the truth of my descent is set forth by itself,
And when it was known it was altogether in me.

--Al Jilwah
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb and Everyone

Quote:
Am I correct that there is a gradual build up of prominence leading up to the peak, and a sharp decline after it? Or is it more the case that anywhere within these sectors the planets are expected to be strong in effect, and anywhere outside of them they are not?


The distributions Gauquelin found do not have sharp declines that suggest houses so you could be right about them being more related to the angles. Peaks are typically just after rising or culminating up, though some distributions (e.g. musicians) peak midway between ASC and MC. I can show you an example from what may be Gauquelin's last article, posted on my web site http://www.encosm.net/mars_effect.htm.

Quote:
More harm than good is done where we try to explain something we don’t yet fully understand. I still believe that Gauquelin is calling us to revaluate principles that were established through the simple observation that the Babylonians made


You are right, understanding comes first before explaining. We need to find a way to explain.

Tom,

Quote:
These results (i.e. the miliatry leaders statistics I alluded to plus his studies on athletes - tc) were duly published in the second book, Les Hommes et les Astres, in which Gauquelin with redoubled ferocity insisted that his evidence was not evidence for astrology.


Although Gauquelin took many risks intellectually, advocating astrology as a science in the 50s was too dangerous. It still is in acedemia, and that is something that needs to change. I think Gauquelin wanted to advocate something new, "stellar influences" (he proposed many possible mechanisms of "influence," all of them ridiculed by scientists). This new new approach would transform thinking about astrology. This sort of "renaming" approach is not unique and other authors took a similar approach, such as "cosmobiology," "geocosmic studies," "combined stellar influences," and so forth, even my own "environmental cosmology." Sometimes you've just got to call it something else, even though everyone knows it's astrology.

Gauquelin was criticised by scientists because after he had exhaused his hypotheses, not finding anything statistical in astrology, he continued to look for something/anything. He believed there had to be something there, if only he could find it. It was immensely frustrating. He dissolved the familiar boundaries of astrology as we know it, and just looked for patterns.

It strikes me now how very strange that his initial discovery was based on the birth data of high ranking medical academics. Who would have considered such an unusual sample? I think now that he purposely chose the worst critics of astrology, triumphantly discovered statistical astrology using their personalities, and published the results, including the data. The unmistakable mark of a true Scorpio!

When I once asked Gauquelin if he was an iconclast for both astrology and science, I was surprised by how immediately and delightedly he accepted that description.

How do you go from believing to knowing?

Quote:
This is the sort of thing that could drive a sane man crazy.


When you go crazy, you start to look in the least likely and most daring places, as Gauquelin did. Gauquelin said that when he first saw the pattern in the distributions of Saturn and Jupiter in the medical academics, then he "knew" that he had something. It was something he at least partially understood, because of the connection to traditional meanings of Saturn and Jupiter, and thus he could at least partially explain what the results meant.

I think that knowing means sampling your experience, making connections, and sharing. To enter the realm of knowledge, you need to share.

Sungem,

Quote:
Everything is connected. That's why astrology works.


That's a good belief. Gauquelin wanted to know not so much the "why" but the "how."

Andrew,

You are right that there are different kinds of knowing.

For me, there is the knowledge of rational experimental research and there is also the shared knowledge of common sense, which I believe comes from "practical research." We all learned astrology, so this "knowledge" must have come from somewhere. We are all building on the knowledge we learned.

Deb,

Quote:
You know, these sorts of discussions really stress me out!


Me too! I hope with this Aries solar eclipse that this thread can come to an end and I can get back to my family and the things I should be doing that are less stressful than trying to sort out these complex issues. You can only cram so much into this tiny window I'm writing in.

When I rise early in the morning in the first hours of sunrise, and go for a jog or do my tai chi, I listen to the soft, distant sounds of the city waking up. Sound carries very far and so do thoughts. The morning chorus of birds gently invogorates me. There's a freshness in the air and distant memories of pleasant times come to me. I see new things and think new ideas. The 12th house can't be as bad as it's sometimes described. Surely the Sun would tell. I think sometimes you have to follow common sense, don't you?

Please read The Book of Hiram by Knight and Lomas. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Please also read my book! www.encosm.net.

KennethM


Last edited by Piper on Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sungem



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 206
Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kenneth

It's been a very interesting thread . . . however . . .
Quote:
You are right that there are different kinds of knowing.

For me, there is the knowledge of rational experimental research and there is also the shared knowledge of common sense, which I believe comes from "practical research."

Sometimes you just have to believe?
Quote:
That's a good belief. Gauquelin wanted to know not so much the "why" but the "how."

Oh dear. . . anybody up for the eternal Fate vs Free Will? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For me, there is the knowledge of rational experimental research and there is also the shared knowledge of common sense, which I believe comes from "practical research." We all learned astrology, so this "knowledge" must have come from somewhere. We are all building on the knowledge we learned.


Did the ancient Babylonian and Chinese astrologers keep such extensive records in order to verify their findings against the historical record and reduce their bias? And if they used the same method that scientists used today, did they do so in order to achieve the same *objective*? Ancient science was not separate from religious thought and philosophy, indeed science itself is always relative to its time. Modern science separates the rational human observer from nature, which is now a realm of impersonal objects to be studied or exploited by man. Ludwig Edelstein observed that explanation, classification and systematization are not foreign to ancient mythologies; pre-Socratic science aimed at understanding 'the essence of things.' However, ancient science 'was not a mere knowledge nor was it a mere technique; it preserved an awareness of the meaning of the universe and retained a place for values within the world of facts.' Ancient science was not therefore committed to an embedded rationality; it was a way of presenting the relationship of the living Earth to the rest of the universe.

In his 'Dictionary of Astrology,' Fred Gettings writes: 'It is worth observing that this (the use of the statistical approach to large groups of horoscopes) in no way diminishes traditional astrology, which is itself designed to relate only to the unique individual chart, and it has never (until comparatively recent times, in the work of Krafft, Gauquelin, and so on) been regarded as susceptible to statistical interpolation and analysis, the very uniqueness of the individual chart seeming to prohibit such an approach.'

'Military men are indicated by both Mars and Jupiter in the g-sectors...Moon in the g-sectors is indicated in the charts of writers.' Are their prominent military men who do not have both Mars and Jupiter in the g-sectors? Are their prominent writers who do not have the Moon in the g-sectors? And how subjective are the criteria used to determine the prominence of any particular writer? Is a writer prominent because academia has decided he or she is prominent, or is a writer prominent because his or her works are actually read on a regular basis by the reading (i.e., non-illiterate) public?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andrew,

Quote:
Ancient science was not separate from religious thought and philosophy, indeed science itself is always relative to its time.


Quote:
However, ancient science 'was not a mere knowledge nor was it a mere technique; it preserved an awareness of the meaning of the universe and retained a place for values within the world of facts.'


Whether astrology was religious or not, to me it seems self-evident that the more wise ancient astrologers would try to reduce their bias. Bias that favored certain individuals or certain values would be an unsafe practice as regimes and the times changed. Hence the record keeping, which gave astrologers a measure of objectivity and safety, and was perhaps the beginning of science.

I do believe that astrology has objectified values as the signs, as I describe in my book. Beginning in the Enlightenment, but especially in the mid to late 20th century, science has independently learned ways of objectifying values, and the findings have close parallels to astrology.

Quote:
'It is worth observing that this (the use of the statistical approach to large groups of horoscopes) in no way diminishes traditional astrology, which is itself designed to relate only to the unique individual chart...


The meanings of traditional astrology applied to the individual must have come from somewhere. The ancients had a method of finding the meanings from their recorded and collective knowledge, which they applied to individual charts. We know they collected records, because literally tons of them still exist today.

Quote:
Are their prominent military men who do not have both Mars and Jupiter in the g-sectors? Are their prominent writers who do not have the Moon in the g-sectors?


The more eminent the person, the more likely the associated planets will be in the g-sectors, as Suitbert Ertel has so strikingly demonstrated. In other words, the individuals without the associated planets are being forced out as the ranks increase. It would be a good idea to test Ertel's curve over time because in an increasingly specialized world the top ranks may become increasingly harder to attain without the associated planets. There are exceptions. To Gauquelin, Einstein was all the more remarkable because he was a scientist with a g-sector Jupiter instead of the expected Saturn. Gauquelin delighted in describing how Einstein was "different."

Quote:
And how subjective are the criteria used to determine the prominence of any particular writer?


The criteria for all of the studies were very objective. Gauquelin's enemies took care of that part especially well. They did their own tests with their own collected data, using criteria they intensely examined and agree to. They were all eminently qualified scientists, for example one of them was later to became Chairman of the Department of Biostatistic at Harvard. They got the same sorts of distributions as Gauquelin. You would recognize many of the names used in Gauquelin's samples because the individuals are all world renowned. www.encosm.net/mars_effect.htm

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You would recognize many of the names used in Gauquelin's samples because the individuals are all world renowned.


Richard Bach, William Blatty, Peter Benchley, Erskine Caldwell, Joseph Heller, Harper Lee, Colleen McCullough, Grace Metalious, Margaret Mitchell, George Orwell, Mario Puzo, Harold Robbins and JD Salinger have all sold in excess of 10,000,000 copies of their books in both hardcover and paperback worldwide. Clearly, their books are well read, with mass appeal. I wonder if any of these writers have the Moon in the Gauquelin sectors. I have some research to do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sometimes you just have to believe?


Yes, sometimes. Belief has it's basis in some rationale ... even if the rationale isn't always apparant. Perhaps the wisdom lies in suspending judgement until the rationale becomes apparant and is understood?

Quote:
anybody up for the eternal Fate vs Free Will?


One versus the other?
What if Fate = the Ultimate Destination and Free Will = all the choices under the Sun as to how they arrive at that ultimate destination? That Fate & Free Will work hand-in-hand instead of either/or?
Guess it depends on what verse one chooses to sing.
Simply a thought. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Piper



Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 55
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What if Fate = the Ultimate Destination and Free Will = all the choices under the Sun as to how they arrive at that ultimate destination? That Fate & Free Will work hand-in-hand instead of either/or?


This may be a different discussion thread, but I would say there are three things to consider here. Fate, free will, and destiny.

In the modern world we could consider "fate" to be the result of "natural laws," such as the attraction of magnetic north and south, E=mc^2, the orbits of the planets, etc. Deterministic science is essentially an effort to reduce the world to fatalism. The scientists who promote this world view above all others are what I would call fatalistic.

Naturally, free will is what what you choose, and because (at least natal) astrology consists of fuzzy clusters of meanings, there is a good deal of room for free will in the living of a life.

Destiny is where you actually end up as a result of free will and fate. It's your landmark destinations. You do a lot of choosing to create your own destinies. Your destinations are not totally free will, but you work with the genes and natal configuration that you've been given.

KennethM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Sungem



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 206
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This may be a different discussion thread,

I did start a new one but it ended up in Mundane instead of Philosophy (is that destiny at work? Very Happy )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I did start a new one but it ended up in Mundane instead of Philosophy (is that destiny at work? )



(lol) … perhaps Fate if it ‘ended’ in the Mundane world by ‘arriving’ at destiny’s gate.
(Fate/ destiny) = 1 destination that illuminates 2 directions?

Thanks for the pointer … will pop across to see if I can help oil the gate’s hinges and learn something new in the process! Arrow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated