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:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Astrology, religion and philosophy
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PFN



Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 393
Location: Ouro Preto, Brasil

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Al-Biruni also lists Christianity as under Jupiter...
_________________
Paulo Felipe Noronha


Last edited by PFN on Sun May 30, 2010 2:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4192
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Al-Biruni also lists Chritianity as under Jupiter...
.

This rather makes my point that there is no consensus in traditional astrological sources so we maybe we need to start thinking for ourselves. Shocked

For Abu Ma'shar Jupiter is the general indicator of faith. It doesn't represent any religion on its own. Its admixture with other planets tells you which faith is represented. Thus Jupiter+ Mercury=Christianity, Jupiter + Venus=Islam, Jupiter+Saturn=Judaism etc.

Quote:
We say that, since Jupiter is by nature an indicator of faith, and the differences of faiths in periods, religions and dynasties are from its mixture... If it (Jupiter) is mixed with Saturn, it indicates that the faith of the people of that religion is Judaism, which is similar to the essence of Saturn, since the <other> planets apply to it, and it does not apply to any planet among them. Similarly, the people of all other faiths confess Judaism, but it does not confess them (their faiths). Most of them will do what is similar to this religion or the like. If the mixer with it is Mars, it indicates the worship of fire and the faith of Mazdaism. If the mixer with it is the Sun, it indicates the worship of the planets, idols, and the marvellous. If the mixer with it is Venus, it indicates revealed religion, and monotheism, like Islam and the like. If the mixture with it is Mercury, it indicates Christianity, and every faith containing antipathy, doubt, and trouble. If the mixer with it is the Moon, it indicates doubts, confusion, tafl, apostasy, and distrust in the faith, and what is because of the quick change of the Moon and its movement, and because of its short stay in each of the signs.
Abu Ma'shar - The Book of Religions and Dynasties: On the Great Conjunctions - Edited and translated by Charles Burnett and Keiji Yamamoto and published by Brill 2000

_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1309
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:


I dont know if any renaissance astrologers said anything on Protestantism symbolized as a planet. However, I plan to put up a chart for the Protestant Reformation soon on the mundane forum.....

Mark


There is Johann Lichtenberger prophecy, copied by Paul of Middleburg, published in 1488, but soon after published in several editions, because a monk dressed in white soon appeared in Europe.
The same Luther wrote a preface to one of the many editions of Lichtenberger prophecy.
In the text there was a mention to the Albumasar's text about religion- which was very famous, there was even a Christian version.

Lichtenberger mentioned - between all the rest, mentioned Mars and Moon, you have Albumasar list.

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Estebon_Duarte



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 131
Location: West Coast USA

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:
Quote:
Al-Biruni also lists Chritianity as under Jupiter...
.

This rather makes my point that there is no consensus in traditional astrological sources so we maybe we need to start thinking for ourselves. Shocked



That's what got us disconnected from the tradition in the first place! While I agree that there are many discrepancies between Traditional authors, there are also usually hundreds of years separating them. I think we put to much emphasis on consistency of techniques when dealing with older methods, each method has to be studied and practiced within its own context and I find that if we stick with an author all the way through their methods (without adding nuances from other sources or eras) we can get pretty reliable results. So I might use the methods of Ibn Ezra or Masha'allah when practicing Mundane and Abu Ali or Bonatti for Natal procedures, but stay true to the methods they describe as I work out a particular signification or disposition.
_________________
Western Predictive Astrology by Estebon Duarte Independent Researcher AMA MACAA
Natal Chart & Annual Solar Revolution Reports
www.organic-astrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4192
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That's what got us disconnected from the tradition in the first place!


No its not. The idea of astrology as a static tool is contradicted by astrological history. Moreover, the best astrologers have always retained a questioning, critical spirit and made clear that they didn't accept every astrological idea that preceded them. Ptolemy, Ibn Ezra and Morin are just three examples.

I think there are two extremes that need to be avoided. The first is the arrogant modernist attitude that traditional sources are always outdated and necessarily need an upgrade. The second extreme is the hyper traditionalist mentality that believes the answer to every astrological issue is answered by studying and then quoting a traditional source. The fact that a traditional source said something only proves what that traditional source said. The challenge is to demonstrate such techniques actually have a practical application. Unless of course you simply want to be an academic authority on the history of astrology.

The first attitude often dismisses traditional techniques without properly understanding them. The second attitude sometimes upholds them without explaining why they should be supported. I suppose that raises the larger question of what we mean by 'tradition' in itself.

I want to quote a statement made by Deborah Houlding in one of her posts:

Quote:
a tradition is something that we develop, draw from and contribute to; its not what any of us are.


Yes lets draw from the tradition. But ultimately if an aspect of traditional astrology cannot demonstate any practical usefulness we shouldn't adopt a rigid outlook. As far as I can see the traditional idea of planets tied to specific religions has singularly failed to produce any practical application in terms of astrological prediction. Of course this may never have been the intention. Perhaps this was always a more abstract , philosophical notion which never sought demonstration in practical astrology. Some ideas are simply logically self consistent within a particular school of thought.

Quote:
I think we put to much emphasis on consistency of techniques when dealing with older methods, each method has to be studied and practiced within its own context and I find that if we stick with an author all the way through their methods (without adding nuances from other sources or eras) we can get pretty reliable results. So I might use the methods of Ibn Ezra or Masha'allah when practicing Mundane and Abu Ali or Bonatti for Natal procedures, but stay true to the methods they describe as I work out a particular signification or disposition.


I wouldn't disagree with you there. However, the point I was making is that the tradition is not monolithic.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus


Last edited by Mark on Sun May 30, 2010 7:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
amelia



Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 347
Location: Wales

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the issue of the symbology of religions within astrology is a very specific case of the wider issue; how far we can apply traditional techniques today. It is not the fact that the techniques were right or wrong at the that time that is at issue, but rather how we adapt them to the world today.

For example no-one would argue that Ptolemy did not have a significator for America or Australia. But we don't just pretend they don't exist because they hadn't been discovered in AD100. We apply our knowledge logically and perhaps intuitively, we do not regurgitate.

So back to religions. We are in a different place to the traditional writers ( e.g. in the UK which has become increasingly secular in the last 50 years). I for example, was cristened reformed church, confirmed church of england, went to a Catholic convent with a Hindu best friend, did projects on Buddhism and Shintoism, then later had a Muslim flatmates and worked for a Jewish company. These days I am definitely agnostic, and possibly almost aetheistic. I can't really justify unquestionally applying symbology drawn up by people who were constrained by a single religious doctrine.

My view, borne purely out of my perspective above,is that there is no one planet that symbolises an individual religion.
I would say, using just traditional rulers for now, that for all religions:
Jupiter does rule faith in general
Saturn rules dogma/doctrine/laws and dictats
Mercury their scriptures in general
Mars rules the tendancy to attack other religions
Venus, the common feeling of righteousness within the religion
The Sun rules the god in all the Monotheistic relions
I am not sure about the Moon...

However, suppose I were doing a horary, then I might assign individial planets to two religions but my choice of these would be dependent on the context that I was asking the question at that time.
_________________
"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper" Eden Phillpotts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4192
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I think the issue of the symbology of religions within astrology is a very specific case of the wider issue; how far we can apply traditional techniques today. It is not the fact that the techniques were right or wrong at the that time that is at issue, but rather how we adapt them to the world today.


I agree. The key word is adaption. That is not the same as contempt prior to enquiry. I think a lot of modern astrologers discard traditional techniques without giving them any serious study. For example, I once heard Noel Tyl describe traditional rulerships as 'medieval , outdated stuff, just dont dont waste your time'.

Quote:
For example no-one would argue that Ptolemy did not have a significator for America or Australia. But we don't just pretend they don't exist because they hadn't been discovered in AD100. We apply our knowledge logically and perhaps intuitively, we do not regurgitate.


Indeed. Following traditional authorities doesn't absolve us from using our minds creatively.

Quote:
I can't really justify unquestionally applying symbology drawn up by people who were constrained by a single religious doctrine.


I think that is the core of my objection to this kind of approach too. I understand the historical context but that doesn't mean I have to slavishly accept the religious prejudices of these writers.

Quote:
My view, borne purely out of my perspective above,is that there is no one planet that symbolises an individual religion.
I would say, using just traditional rulers for now, that for all religions:
Jupiter does rule faith in general
Saturn rules dogma/doctrine/laws and dictats
Mercury their scriptures in general
Mars rules the tendancy to attack other religions
Venus, the common feeling of righteousness within the religion
The Sun rules the god in all the Monotheistic relions
I am not sure about the Moon...


I think this is a more practical way forward. I may want to differ on a few planets but I like your basic approach. We might also want to distinguish between the more liberal tolerant expression of any faith versus the intolerant, fundamentalist version. Thus Saturn or Mars could represent the modern fundamentalist extreme of any faith.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1309
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good morning, Mark

MarkC wrote:


I think that is the core of my objection to this kind of approach too. I understand the historical context but that doesn't mean I have to slavishly accept the religious prejudices of these writers.


I don't think it's exactly like that.
For example the "horoscope of religions" was written by a Muslim but happily introduced in Catholic astrology, and the same happened for the Beautiful Virgin with the Child rising with the first facie of Virgo.
Astrology in the Middle Ages was a common language for Catholic, Jews, and Muslims. I mean Albumasar was a book present in every Catholic library, Inquisition or not.

And the monk dressed in white arrived when he should arrive according the astrological prophecy.
And whatever effort Cardano to enter in Wittemberg, who was invited to rectify Luther's chart? The Pope's astrologer, Luca Gaurico.

Because the only thing important between astrologers was astrology, not religion.

At least I don't have any interest in correcting, rectifying, and so on. Moreover I have my wicked idea that 90% of people who says "Ptolemy is wrong", "Albumasar is wrong" or something like that, has not really understood the author s/he is criticizing.
Because if it was really like this why nobody before noticed it? People is not stupid, after 100-200 years someone would jump out and say. Or not?

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4192
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
MarkC wrote:
I think that is the core of my objection to this kind of approach too. I understand the historical context but that doesn't mean I have to slavishly accept the religious prejudices of these writers.


Quote:
Margherita wrote:
I don't think it's exactly like that. For example the "horoscope of religions" was written by a Muslim but happily introduced in Catholic astrology, and the same happened for the Beautiful Virgin with the Child rising with the first facie of Virgo. Astrology in the Middle Ages was a common language for Catholic, Jews, and Muslims. I mean Albumasar was a book present in every Catholic library, Inquisition or not.

And the monk dressed in white arrived when he should arrive according the astrological prophecy.
And whatever effort Cardano to enter in Wittemberg, who was invited to rectify Luther's chart? The Pope's astrologer, Luca Gaurico.

Because the only thing important between astrologers was astrology, not religion.


Hello Margherita,

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and tireless dedication to unearthing traditional astrological sources for the wider public. I have benefited from this a lot myself. However, all that knowledge seems to be clouding your objectivity on this occasion. Your last comment suggests this particular approach to religion is based on a value free astrology that has nothing to do with religious context. Nothing could be further from the truth. All these astrological writers were montheistic in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic revealed lineage. Their religious world view was pretty much these faiths and 'others'.

Indeed in Islam only Christians and Jews were generally allowed to continue practising their faith as 'people of the book'. Followers of others faiths were liable to forcible conversion or Jihad. However, it was not an equal status for Jews and Christians and they were much like second class citizens being heavily taxed under the so called Dhimmi laws. This is the context an astrologers like Abu' Mashar or Al Biruni were writing in. For example how does Abu Ma'shar see Christianity? Lets remind ourselves:

Quote:
If the mixture with it is Mercury, it indicates Christianity, and every faith containing antipathy, doubt, and trouble.


Equally, as you have pointed out Cardano felt it was acceptable to change the planetary attribution of Islam from Venus to Mars.

Clearly, every writer had their religious preconceptions. The Semitic monotheistic consensus they all shared infused the basic assumption of their writings. I know many traditionalists harbour the notion that everything would be perfect if we could just turn the clock back 300, 400, or 500 etc years. However, in regards this issue we simply cannot. Religiously, the world is much more complicated and diverse than the it was in the medieval or renaissance period. To naively accept the astrological perspective of these sources on the religions means accepting their religious world view too.

My personal religious views are more Buddhist than anything else. I am delighted to utilise traditional sources. However, the ultimate consequence of what you are saying is that I have to uncritically accept the religious world view of medieval and renaissance astrologers. Some of you might find readily accepting such a world view more easy if you are already Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. However, I would have thought any open minded thinker would acknowledge our understanding of other non-Semitic faiths has grown immeasurably since these texts were written. The unsettling possibility is that some of the people involved in contemporary traditional astrology actually share the prejudices of the medieval or renaissance writers on religion towards non-semitic faiths.

Quote:
At least I don't have any interest in correcting, rectifying, and so on.


Then you have stopped thinking! Your advocating a rigidity that the traditional authorities never practised. As I stated above astrologers like Ptolemy, Ibn Ezra and Morin didn't uncritically accept everything that preceded them. I am not suggesting we dismantle the whole tradition. However, from time to time we have to question things. To act as if nothing has changed at all since these writers wrote their texts is not really sustainable. Whether we like it or not we are all modern astrologers who live in the 21st century.

Quote:
Moreover I have my wicked idea that 90% of people who says "Ptolemy is wrong", "Albumasar is wrong" or something like that, has not really understood the author s/he is criticizing.


As Amelia stated its not an issue of whether they were right or wrong. It simply the reality that world we have to apply the astrological tradition to is very different world today. Of course as the old saying goes if the old shoe still fits dont throw it away. I accept we can often makes traditional ideas perfectly serviceable for today.

However, I also think its its a bit insulting to suggest anyone questioning any aspect of the tradition doesn't understand. This smacks a bit of fundamentalism to me. In other words the scriptures are always inherently correct. If you question anything its because you dont understand. They can never be wrong be they are the divine word of God......

Personally, I dont think you need a PHD on this subject to realise the world view of these astrologers was very limited and culturally constrained in regards religion.

Quote:
Because if it was really like this why nobody before noticed it? People is not stupid, after 100-200 years someone would jump out and say. Or not?


As I stated above noone challenged the basic paradigm of religion=planet because they all shared a consensus that there were ultimately just three Semitic religions that really mattered. Secularization and exposure to non-Semitic religions didn't really occur in the west to any degree until the traditional astrological era was over.

Having said all this I do think its worth taking a look at this subject empirically too. For example, many of the charts associated with the early Reformation have a Scorpio and Mars association.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1309
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:

Then you have stopped thinking! Your advocating a rigidity that the traditional authorities never practised. As I stated above astrologers like Ptolemy, Ibn Ezra and Morin didn't uncritically accept everything that preceded them. I am not suggesting we dismantle the whole tradition. However, from time to time we have to question things. To act as if nothing has changed at all since these writers wrote their texts is not really sustainable. Whether we like it or not we are all modern astrologers who live in the 21st century.


Sorry if you are so angry with me. It's the second in my life people is angry with me for Luther prophecy.

The point is I'm not so interested in defending one religion, better than the others. I have more a philological interest, if i can call like that, in the signs astrology left in the world and culture and civilisation. I take facts for what they were without judging about who is right and wrong, I believe I cannot be the judge and neither I desire.
So forgive me if i wrote something wrong.

About changing tradition, I believe there is some room for interpreting rules, yes, obvious.
Still my LIMITED - this I know- experience makes me believe that many times when someone says "this or that is wrong" it means he has not understood very well what this or that would mean.
I'm a firm supporter of Darwinian selection in this field- what is really wrong nobody remembers after 10 years.

Forgive me again,
margherita

About my
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4192
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry if you are so angry with me. It's the second in my life people is angry with me for Luther prophecy.


I am not angry with you at all. What makes you think the Luther prophecy information has annoyed me? I hope you share more of this on the thread I plan to open on the Reformation. That and your knowledge of the ambiguity over Luther's natal data is most interesting.

My post was more of a general frustration with the attitudes that seem to be so prevalent in traditional astrology. Although I addressed you my reply was really a response to all the traditionalists here who criticise ever changing anything in astrological practice no matter how much has changed in the intervening period.

Quote:
The point is I'm not so interested in defending one religion, better than the others. I have more a philological interest, if i can call like that, in the signs astrology left in the world and culture and civilisation. I take facts for what they were without judging about who is right and wrong, I believe I cannot be the judge and neither I desire. So forgive me if i wrote something wrong.


I see. I think we have misunderstood each other. I had thought as this was the philosophy forum you were also sharing your personal take on the matter. To me philosophy is more than just repeating the arguments of others. Its personaly engaging with the issues. If this had been on the traditional forum I would taken your comments in the spirit you have just suggested. As it was here though I took it you were looking to debate a position you held.

Quote:
About changing tradition, I believe there is some room for interpreting rules, yes, obvious. Still my LIMITED - this I know- experience makes me believe that many times when someone says "this or that is wrong" it means he has not understood very well what this or that would mean. I'm a firm supporter of Darwinian selection in this field- what is really wrong nobody remembers after 10 years.


I think this issue is double edged. On the one hand some modernists want to ditch everything without even studying the basics. I do think studying the sources is important and enriching. On the other hand I detect a tendency in some traditional astrology that a creative thought is a route to astrological error. You imply this material has only really survived because it really works. In some cases I would agree with you. However, we are now getting access to an immense amount of translated texts from traditional sources. Whether they are all really effective or not is surely a work in progress.

Quote:
Forgive me again,

Really nothing to forgive. In case you hadn't noticed I like a good debate!

Best regards,

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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