25
Therese Hamilton wrote:Annadeer wrote:
Pluto ('the wealthy one or giver of wealth')/Hades ('the unseen one'), lord of the underworld, of death and abundance, is all about control and mystery.
In light of observing how Pluto acts (and considering several psychic readings by Edgar Cayce), I am REALLY wondering now if the planet we call Pluto isn’t related to Hades/Pluton at all, but is instead associated with Vulcan. Because Hades’ realm was the underworld, he wasn’t usually considered one of the Olympians. But Hephaestus/Vulcan was a child or Zeus and Hera (or some say Hera alone).

Therese wrote:
I just very belatedly realized that if what Edgar Cayce said is true: "Pluto and Vulcan are one and the same." (reading #826-eight), I at least have been confusing Pluton/Hades with Hephaestus/Vulcan, the smith god for the Olympians. They both have realms under the earth. If the new planet we call Pluto is actually related to fire (Vulcan was the God of Fire), then the name 'Pluto' may be misleading.
I doubt that 'Pluto' was a misnomer. Mythological deities/archetypes have their unfathomable ways to make sure that newly discovered celestial bodies are named after them appropriately. :)

As for Edgar Cayce, he said many fascinating and inspiring things. Just for the record, I was a member of the A.R.E. myself for a short while and have a collection of the sleeping prophet's readings on a CD-ROM. However, I do take some of his statements with a grain of salt.

Vulcan in my book is a body in close proximity to the Sun (more of a 'moon' to him, really) - hypothetical as of today, although it's conceivable that at least a vulcanoid will be found by astronomers eventually. Astrophysical models of the solar system predict a stable zone in that region, where some kind of asteroid belt should exist.
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

26
Michael wrote:
Therese, I just realized that we are about to turn this thread into another 'sidereal vs. tropical' debate. I really appreciate your various valuable contributions to my actual query so far, and I would ask you to re-direct your focus accordingly. Thanks!
I don't see it that way, Michael. I see it as mutually understanding the zodiacs. There is no need for the discussion to be one vs. the other. I think it best to follow the academic procedure where different views are presented and sometimes hotly debated, hopefully within the bounds of politeness. But anyhow I think the quotes from the early siderealists give a good picture of sidereal concepts. Perhaps nothing more can be added.

Right now I want to post a couple of Edgar Cayce readings where he mentions Pluto. I find them very interesting.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

27
Michael wrote:
As for Edgar Cayce, he said many fascinating and inspiring things. Just for the record, I was a member of the A.R.E. myself for a short while and have a collection of the sleeping prophet's readings on a CD-ROM. However, I do take some of his statements with a grain of salt.
Do you have a CD that works??!! I have three going back to the days of DOS, but none of them will work now. The only way to access the readings is to become an A.R.E. member.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

28
From the dates of the Cayce readings, it seems that astrologers wasted no time in jumping onto Pluto which was discovered in 1930.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

TEXT OF READING 826-8- August 11, 1936
19. (Q) Is there a planet anciently known as Lilith or Vulcan?

(A) Pluto and Vulcan are one and the same. No Lilith. Lilith is a personality.

TEXT OF READING 780-6 Dec 2 1939
14. (Q) Just what are the effects of Pluto, in conjunction with one's ascendant?

(A) This as we find is entirely amiss from what we might call a physical expression - but, as we find indicated, these are a development that is occurring in the universe, or environs about the earth - Pluto. Not as some have indicated, that it is gradually being dissipated. It is gradually GROWING, and thus is one of those influences that are to be as a demonstrative activity in the future affairs or developments of man towards the spiritual-minded influences, or those influences outside of himself.

These in the present, as might be said, are merely the becoming AWARE of same. Rather within the next hundred to two hundred years there may be a great deal of influence upon the ascendancy of man; for it's closest of those to the activities of the earth, to be sure, and is a DEVELOPING influence, and not one already established.

Note: [4/17/65 See 900-10 report by MHB indicating Pluto might be Septimus mentioned in early readings.]

[Bonus note on Neptune since this question followed the question on Pluto:]

15. (Q) What are the effects of Neptune, in conjunction with the Sun, in one's horoscope?

(A) Neptune, of course, is the water sign, and is of the farther distance; and in conjunction with the Sun in the sign of the individual is that inclination - or having the effect upon the individual through that particular period - of being open-minded to spiritual or higher influences of the mystical nature - as represented in the figure of the body through those particular periods.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

29
Waybread wrote:
With Eris as the mythological sister of Mars and with the orbit of astronomical Eris sometimes dipping in between Pluto and Neptune, she fits the orbital schema of planetary rulerships well enough to be assigned to Aries.
For myself at this time, I question the orbit of Eris, and perhaps I depend too much on the published genealogy of the Greek God pantheon. Eris isn't included in this genealogy. I would like to see planetary co-rulers as Olympians!

Image
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

30
it might be worth noting that eris has been in the tropical sign of aries since around 1925, and appears to remain in tropical aries til about 2050... so, the association with eris and aries might be a byproduct of its present placement in all of our lives??

just speculation on my part and fwiw - eris is within 1 degree of my natal sun and i have been known to create discord from time to time!!

31
Cyril Fagan wrote:
But the influences of the tropical signs must never be identified with their namesakes of the sidereal zodiac. To do so is to fall foul of the homonymous error. Those who dispute the validity of the sidereal zodiac are usually beguiled by the homonymous fallacy.

Cyril Fagan, The Solunars Handbook, Clancy Publications, 1970-76, p. 27.
Winding up this topic, the one concept that is very important from the sidereal point of view is that traits of a sign in the tropical zodiac are NOT the same in the same sign of the sidereal zodiac. This is the point Cyril Fagan and other early siderealists make in their writings. This is why as we perceive Pluto, it can be made to fit tropical Scorpio, but sidereal Aries. I think it says something about the lack of logical thinking among today's Jyotish astrologers that they don't see a problem when they copy traits of tropical Aries to sidereal Aries for example.

How can any specific sign of the zodiacs have exactly the same meaning when these two signs are located in different areas of the sky? Does the mindset of an astrologer determine the traits of a zodiac sign??

Take the 27 lunar mansions (formerly nakshatras) that everyone agrees are identified by specific stars in the sky. Any traits linked to these mansions and stars MUST be apparent in both zodiacs in the sky area where these stars are actually located. If any sidereal traits are linked to these stars, those traits should be apparent in a zodiac, no matter in which sign those stars are located.

We see this effect, for example, in tropical Scorpio which is basically split down the middle (approximately--in 1992 the degree split was at 13 Sco 45). The first half of Scorpio contains the feet of the starry Virgin while the constellation of Libra lies the second half. If anyone bothered to research the lives and personalities of individuals with Scorpio emphasis, they would see a distinct difference between these two parts of Scorpio. (Actually the last few degrees of tropical Scorpio belong to a third mansion which extends into Sagittarius.)

This is why we can't ignore any traits that happen to be linked to those stars and constellations. This is a whole new area of research for tropical astrologers in particular. Jyotish astrologers already consider the mansions in their work.

Of course determining the source of observed traits of signs is a major problem in itself!! And with the current state of non-research in astrology there is little proof for anything. All we can do is cite specific examples of life patterns and psychological traits for individuals.

I think for a complete astrology of zodiac signs we have to integrate the 12 sign concept (whose origin is in the west) with the 27 nakshatras of India. India doesn't have the 12 starry zodiac constellations, and the west doesn't have the sky patterns of the 27 mansions/nakshatras. So the sky has been broken up in two different ways.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

32
Therese, Eris belongs in our solar system. If it didn't, it would be orbiting some other star.

Please check out the link to Eris that I gave in my post of December 7 in the theoi website. It is a compendium of all known extant classical primary sources listed under each deity. You can't just rely on a simple genealogy in one secondary source because the ancient authors themselves gave different versions.

Homer gave Eris's parentage to Zeus and Hera. You can't get more mainstreamed than that, although other sources differed. As the sister of Mars and the personification of warfare and strife, mythological Eris was not a minor figure. [See the myth where she was credited with initiating the Trojan War.]

Let me remind you that Saturn and Uranus were not Olympians.
Last edited by waybread on Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

33
The radius of dwarf planet Eris is 1163 km.

The radius of Pluto is 1188 km.

The are certainly comparable.

The radius of Chiron is 136 km.

Edgar Cayce is not a credible source. Some of his predictions and pseudo-histories were wrong. He was also a devout Christian, so that if one accepts his pronouncements as "gospel truth," there are some real gospels to get to.

34
"Edgar Cayce is not a credible source."

spoken like an arrogant pompous university prof, lol... i know a lot of them feel the same way about astrology in generall - "not a credible source"...

36
I believe that Cayce's organization published a book on his relatively few predictions that didn't come true. The organization is quite open in discussing these cases. I may have this book in my extensive library which is housed in several rooms...not taking time to look right now.

However the great majority of Cayce's readings were helpful notes on how to treat and cure various illness and diseases, many of which puzzled the doctors. His many readings that mention astrological factors (primarily the planets) are published for review and study. Also several authors who are not affiliated with Cayce organization (A.R.E.) have written books on Cayce's astrology. Cayce is much too important and genuine to blithely toss off with a comment or two.

I did just find this in my 'ready to read' stack of books on an open shelf:

A.R.E. Press book published in 2012: Earth Changes, Historical, Economical, Political and Global:

Chapter 4: "Changes--Inaccurate, Misinterpreted or Partially Wrong" (pp. 89-105)
Chapter 5: "Changes in World Affairs" (pp. 106-156)
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm