Ever since Pluto was discovered in the 1930, there has been a raging debate about whether Pluto ruled Scorpio or Aries. Currently, the majority of astrologers have assigned it to Scorpio and the 8th house. But there is still a minority opinion that it belongs to Aries. This confusion results from the ancient dual rulership of Mars for both Scorpio and Aries.
accessnewage.com/articles/...benplu.htm
www.factsbehindfaith.com/Pluto...d.html


Esoteric Astrology also has different rulerships for signs
www.btinternet.com/~seamaid...ships.htm

Frances Sakoian and Louis S. Acker talked about Pluto co-rulier of Aries and Scorpio in their book, THE ASTROLOGERS HANDBOOK


Personally, I have been a longtime believer in Pluto ruling Scorpio, but now I am not sure at all....especially since reading about the discovery of the kuiper belt and that Pluto is one of many objects of the kuiper belt, I have been doubting that Pluto is a planet. Astronomers believe that there is strong possibility that they will find dozens of Pluto-sized objects in the Kuiper Belt region.....even some Mars-sized objects. I am not sure.....if they do find some,I doubt that that they will find them in our lifetime. Astronomers gave Pluto the same treatment as they gave to Ceres. Ceres and along with Juno,Pallas,and Vesta were thought to be planets. Then the astronomers realized that they were actually a few of many objects which they called called asteroids. Therefore,they stripped them of planetary status.
In Astronomy, Pluto and Ceres are now equals as dwarf planets even though they are treated unequally in Astrology.
I always felt Ceres was underrated and I had ambivalent attitude in regards to viewing Pluto as superior.

I guess I prefer to embrace new things. Even mainstream astrologers embraced new things when they started using the outerplanets.


I am losing my belief in validity of signs and houses in Astrology. I won't say that they don't work. That's not for me to say. After all,we all have our different beliefs and practices.

at least u nail your colours to the mast here.the begining stuff was only stating the obvious.
it s easier i think, when u know where 1 stands,so u can head in a certian direction

Raymond wrote:
"Astrologers seem to disagree on the most fundamental issues of their craft....

"Read ten different astrology columns, or have a reading done by ten different astrologers, and you will probably get ten different interpretations.

If astrology is a science, as its proponents claim, why are its practitioners not converging on a consensus theory after thousands of years of gathering data and refining its interpretation?"

Actually, Raymond, we could ask the same question about some other fields that have nothing to do with astrology. Let's take psychology, for example.

Psychologists seem to disagree on the most fundamental issues of their craft.
Read books by ten different authors and you will probably get ten different methods, maybe even more if an author is choosing pieces from different experts to come up with their own methods. For example, we have schools of psychology based on the works of:
1. Freud, Sigmund
2. Adler, Alfred
3. Jung, Carl
4. Horney, Karen
5. Sullivan, Harry S.
6. Erikson, Erik
7. Fromm, Erich
8. Berne, Eric
9. Harris, Thomas
10. Watson, J. B.
11. Skinner, B. F.
12. Wolpe, Joseph
13 Glasser, William
14. Dobson, James
15. Rogers, Carl
16. Maslow, Abraham
17. Frankl, Viktor
18. May, Rollo
19. Hiltner, Seward
20. Mowrer, O. Hobart
21. Perls, Fritz
22. Ellis, Albert
(If anyone is curious, my favorite is Fritz Perls. I first discovered him through his book, "IN AND OUT OF THE GARBAGE CAN". If you know my chart has Venus conjunct Pluto, it might help to explain why I was drawn to that title.)

There are other sciences which also have divergent procedures, each with its own practitioners. Take Medicine, for example.
You have acupuncturists who swear they have the answer; chiropractors likewise; osteopaths who like some of the methods of chiropractors but not all of them, relying on traditional methods in addition like drugs; reflexologists; Reiki healers (of which I am one.)

And there are disagreements even among some of the more theoretical sciences.

I think part of the problem is, in psychology, medicine, and astrology, many (if not all) of the methods have validity. Two seemingly divergent procedures can
each give excellent results in some cases. Sometimes, in one situation, one method will give great results, while another will produce very poorly; and yet, in another situation, the reverse will occur.

Referring specifically back to astrology, there is one universe, but there are many different types of minds trying to understand it, and each one is, to varying degrees, using their own perspective.

Perhaps it is a case of the blind men looking at the elephant? One astrologer feels the tail and thinks they are holding a rope; another bumps into the leg and thinks it is a tree trunk; another feels one of the tusks and thinks he has found a huge spear. None of the blind men sees the whole picture.

And with astrology, maybe that is ALWAYS going to be the way it is. How can we, finite humans, see the whole picture when trying to analyze the universe's impact on humans? At most, each person can see only in part, and the part we see may depend on our own particular mind-map. The person who uses tropical may have a mind map that excludes sidereal. The one who can't use midpoints might have a mind-map where such a concept just does not synch.

Finally, it is a long-held astrological tenet that each astrologer attracts a certain type of clientele. Maybe for me, the clientele I attract has a need to have the asteroids explored, while another astrologer who doesn't use them has been attracting a clientele where there is no need to include the asteroids.

i think it is GREAT that there r differences of opinion.who wants to always be right, if there is truly a thing of being right.i think it is more about highlighting a situation or perception of a person s life in this or that situation, we all have our insights & strengths, & i use astrology to grow & help others to grow, NOT TO BE RIGHT!!

my chart is posted in my profile photo section

Yes, ma'am. Agreed.

I can relate to what you are saying about triggering memories.

This week when mercury was retrograde it brought back memories of an event that took place early a.m. last Aug 12.
I figured that perhaps Mercury was in opposition to the point it is now. I just looked at the aspects for that date and sure enough, mercury was conjunct my Uranus Midheaven at that time along with the moon conjunct, acting as a trigger.

I was tested early this morning to see if I learned a lesson from it, seems I only learned part of the lesson. lol

But at least I was prepared for it and had a feeling I would have a similar encounter this week.

I think the meaning of retrograde is connected to the fact that planets are always closest to the Earth when retrograde. They are brighter too, with the exception of Mercury & Venus who combust while retro.

so having only pluto retrograde is what gives me such a terrible memory?

All my planets are forward not one retro. What does it make me?

Gavon,

Because of the threading, it's hard to tell who you are replying to.

Quoting the original poster helps, or at least a name.

Thanks Zane,

I guess I just don't see how a wounded healer relates to sagittarius, sure its considered a 'centaur' but other than that...

Terry:

Well, the biggest 'variable is 'where you draw the line' between actual constellations.
(Yes, all lines are 'fictional')

For those who have read the book by Swami Sri Yukteswar : 'The Divine Science' ,
know that his surprisingly lengthy introduction is all about convincing people that
we have come out of the Age of Kali! (and into Dwapara)

Willow said: When will the Age of Aquarius begin? Whenever we choose for it to begin. I don't think there is actually a set date. We're in the transition time, so I choose NOW.

Hear, Hear!

The concept of astrological ages is based on the sidereal zodiac. The current age is determined by the sidereal zodiac sign that the Sun is transiting during spring equinox. The fact that this sign changes over time reveals the difference between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs caused by the precession of the equinoxes. This particular controversy about the ages is the result of astrologers disagreeing on where the sidereal signs are actually located in the sidereal sphere. In Vedic astrology circles, this is known as the question of ayanamsa. The ayanamsa is a changing value in degrees used to calculate the sidereal zodiac from the tropical zodiac.

It is interesting to me that the concept of astrological sign ages is more popular among Western astrologers who in general don't use the sidereal zodiac for readings. I think this also contributes to the confusion around the astrological ages, as it is astrologers unfamiliar with the sidereal zodiac who are largely promoting the concept of astrological ages.

As a Vedic astrologer currently practicing astrology with the tropical zodiac, I am starting to question the validity of the sidereal zodiac. The fact that sidereal astrologers disagree on where the signs are in the sky makes me wonder if the stars were accidentally named after signs that were originally meant to be tropical. The tropical zodiac, as most experienced astrologers know, has nothing to do with the stars and is a way to map the relationship between the Earth and the Sun through the solstices, equinoxes, and changing seasons.

Traditionally in India, the astrological ages were named after nakshatras, which are another more ancient way of naming the constellations. There are 27 nakshatras of 13 degrees 20 minutes each. The nakshatras are all named after deities, while the 12 signs of the zodiac are named after earthly creatures, showing a symbolic difference between the celestial (heavenly) and terrestrial (earthly) realms.

According to the Sun's position in the nakshatras at spring equinox, we are currently in the Age of Uttara Bhadra. Here is some stuff online I found about Uttara bhadra, with links.

www.experiencefestival.com/a/Na...48912

Uttara Bhadra is ruled by Ahir Budhnya, the serpent of the depths of the Atmosphere. Its power is the bringing of the rain (varshodyamana shakti). Its basis above is the raining clouds. Its basis below growing of the plants. From these three factors the three worlds gain their stability.

Uttara Bhadra grants growth and prosperity in a broad way, benefiting the entire world. This makes it very auspicious. Ahir Budhnya is the benefic serpent who brings the rain, connecting us with the creative powers at the foundations of the world.

www.saibhavishyavani.com/stars.htm

This asterism is a most fortunate one to have on the rising point of a birth chart. It usually indicates a man of means, well to do if not wealthy. A man who owns property and has the ability to earn money and also to spend it wisely and constructively. Being a passive type, his well being may be inherited or bequeathed to him but if he achieves his own success, he will do so without the corollary of someone else's misfortune. He is very intelligent and charitable and generous to those less fortunate than him.

www.astrozib.com/nakashtra...hadra.html

You carry within you profound wisdom. It has nothing to do with how highly you are educated. You are knowledgeable and wise. This is why you make good teachers and advisers. You do not have any selfish motive. You are idealist and you will respect your dreams.

You are intelligent, quick-witted, creative work, peaceful nature, generous and charitable mystical mind, cunning and secretive. Your spiritual path is connected to living life successfully on earth but becoming detached from it. The state of being attached to the material pleasures of life has ended, but the completion of the path to enlightenment is still continuing. The soul endeavors to complete the circle of one manifestation.

You are highly emotional. You want an ideal relationship and will work hard to achieve this. However, if your relationship does not prosper, you will move on or live alone. There are two distinct sides to your personality: you may be sensual and loving, but you can also be detached, spiritual and ascetic.

Although you are usually good with children, you may decide not to have your own. People of Uttara Bhadra nakshatras do not care whether you are sexually active or not. You may want love, relationships and sex, but if none of these are available, you can learn to live without them.

Anyone can think anything. What is your proof that there is no actual start date for the age of Aquarius?

Is there any other branch of astrology that does not have concise delineations between one sign and the next? If you cannot find an example of this anywhere else in astrology why should it apply with the ages?

We don't choose any zodiacal sign's beginning in any other branch of astrology so why should we choose when an age begins based on intuition, fantasy or personal bias?

Why are the ages the laughing stock of astrology?

Why does everyone place Pisces (utopian) concepts upon the Aquarian age.

Why do people project their (Pisces) fantasies and delusions upon the Aquarian age?

Why is the Aquarian age so (Pisces) vague?

Why are 95% of the New Age concepts aligned to Pisces with only about 5% aligned to Aquarius?

That's one of the main Pisces lessons that has yet to be mastered by society at large, in my opinion - the fact that certain things are unproveable by science at the current time. That doesn't mean they don't exist or are irrelevant and should be rejected by all "rational" people - which is the usual trick science tries to pull.

Science divorced from spirituality is a sick road and one I don't want to go down. To me, science is meant to be a tool for humanity to solve its problems and raise its collective standard of living...but it can only reach that potential if Aquarius learns the lessons of Pisces and carries them forward.

Willow, having a `staggered' entry to the Age of Aquarius and an exact date for the start of the Age of Aquarius are not mutally exclusive. In my research i have noticed that virtually immediately a new period associated with the ages appear that some historical event(s) associated with the new period also appears. However the emergent new trend or direction is like a wake from the bow of a boat. It eventually reaches the river bank or shoreline but the closer to the bow of the boat the sooner the wake has its effect.

I agree that the Age of Aquarius does not just happen to us because after many decades studying astrology I have found no reason to believe that there is anything in astrology that is causative. I belong to the synchronicity school. When through precession the Age of Aquarius appeared just so happen to coincide with the emergence of the modern world.

Re rationality - I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Rationality is as good a tool as intuition, psychic observation etc. In my expereince people prefer to rely on intuition etc in place of rationality re the contemporary approach to the ages because the contemporary approach is irrational. Astrology is rational, intuitive and involves psychic archetypes (as Carl Jung clearly suggested many decades ago). None of these are mutually exclusive and each has its valid place in the study of astrology

Anyway I have enjoyed this brief interaction with members here on the Age of Aquarius as it has improved my understanding about how people and astrologers perceive the Age of Aquarius etc. The ages are my passion and I have done a lot of research into the ages over the last two decades. Hopefully i will help bring the Age of Aquarius out of the closet of confusion, delusion and outright nonesense that has afflicted these ages for over 2,100 years.

I have started blogging on Dymystifying the Aquarian Age in preparation for publication of my book on the subject hopefully late in 2008 (when transiting Jupiter leaves my 12th house and enters my 1st house - using whole sign houses). For those interested my blog begins at:

macroastro.wordpress.com/2008/...myths/