Attack on Rudhyar ?

1
I clicked on the Intro to Rudhyar link and found this quote:

''Events do not happen to us, we happen to them.

If a brick falls upon the man's head as he walks along the street, it is the man's responsibility. He walked into the field of the brick's fall. He happened to the brick, because he is a conscious individual and the brick only a piece of universal nature''.

This is an idiotic idea, philosophically speaking, and one wonders if some context has been removed ?

3
That quote is actually a nice illustration of one of the potential pitfalls of modern humanistic psychological astrology. This notion that the natal chart only represents the psyche of the native, and that transits and such only manifest as external events when the individual doesn't properly deal with their own internal psychic conflicts. In this view the native is so empowered, and potentially has so much control over their own life that if something bad happens to them externally then it is essentially their own fault.

This is something that bothers me about humanistic astrology, because it seems like sometimes by going out of their way to make individuals feel empowered, they end up ignoring the fact that not everything is in under our control. Sometimes if a brick falls out of the sky and hits you in the head it isn't necessarily your fault, and no amount of self-examination is going to give you the Jedi powers that would have been necessary to avoid it.

4
Chris, can you give some specific examples of other modern humanistic astrologers who write that if people had a rough time with a transit, it was their own darn fault?

I gave up on Rhudhyar a while ago, after reading most of his books. He was just too woo-woo for my tastes, and I didn't even think a lot of it made for good astrology. On the other hand, the modern astrologers whom I do admire (like Karen Hamaker-Zondag and the early books by Robert Hand) seem to take a more practical, common-sense approach.

On the surface, the Rudhyar quote is silly. The sensible part of what he seems to be saying (in typical Rudhyarian purple prose,) however, is that part of humans' "contract" for living is that we will, inevitably, occasionally put ourselves in harm's way. We should take responsibility for acknowledging that s*** happens, as part of the admission ticket to Planet Earth, so that we don't have to conceptualize ourselves as victims about life's accidents and misfortunes. I think he's against victimology.

I believe the stoics suggested something similar.

I suppose the real import of some modern psychological astrology is that if you have a rough time with a transit, it is Mom's fault. Citations available upon request.

5
waybread wrote:Chris, can you give some specific examples of other modern humanistic astrologers who write that if people had a rough time with a transit, it was their own darn fault?
I think it's certainly implied in a lot of authors books. If you are having a bad mars transit, then some internalised sense of anger and displacement is somehow projected into the manifest world and you have an accident - this is because you didn't DEAL with your mars properly.

We see this attitude a lot, sometimes it's more overt than others.
I believe the stoics suggested something similar.
Yeah I think the stoic philosophy was more like saying, yes, shit can happen, but that doesn't mean you need to feel like shit because of it. It's more a case of cultivating an inner acceptance for reality.
Rudhyar etc. are instead saying shit happens, and it's your fault cos you didn't deal with something or you're not psychologically/spiritually/emotionally evolved enough. I find it odd when people attack traditional astrology for being fatalistic when modern astrology can have something of a history of blaming the victim. Sometimes bricks fall on your head. To take the viewpoint that the entire astroloigcal effect takes place internally in your mind, unless that mind projects it outside itself, suggests that we're gods in our own worlds and all our misfortunes that otherwise might be seen as accidental are in fact our own fault.
I think traditionally astrology was much more liminal. It was in the psyche and the mind, yes, but it was also in the outside manifest world as well.

6
To the other 300 people that walked down that street, there was no brick for them.

It is naive to think that the brink wasn't meant for the person who received it.

Were it not for this, we would be living in a happenstance world, where things don't happen to us for a particular reason, they happen to us randomly, ie. for no real reason at all.

The second option is infinitely more scary than the first.

Peace

James

7
Atlantean wrote: It is naive to think that the brink wasn't meant for the person who received it.
The question is probably less to do with whether or not, on some divine scale, the brick is meant to hit the person, the question is more to do with whether or not the brick falls on your head because of you - in whatever way. In other words, had the person been more conscious/spiritual/enlightened/self aware would the brick have not fallen on them?

In other words is it because of the psyche of the individual that the brick falls. This is certainly what Rhudyar is suggesting, but why take this approach? What has consciousness got to do with a brick? If a tree falls in a forest and there's no human consciousness around to fall on, then is it the consciousness of the ants and the birds? Or when accidents happen devoid of human consciousness are they just accidents? But if an accident happens and there's a human being close by, accidents no longer happen but instead the psyche causes it to happen?

Let's extend the analogy further, let's imagine it's no longer a brick, but a car. A car driven by a drunk driver who drives up onto the pavement after losing control of the car and knocks down and injures the person walking along it. Is it naive to think that the car wasn't meant to hit her? And if so is it because of the psyche of the individual who was walking on the pavement?

It begs the question: Can accidents only happen if humans aren't involved?

8
The problem may be philosophical but it is not astrological. Most people have only heard of natal astrology and not mundane. If bricks fall off buildings it is quite likely to happen in poor countries where maintenance is poor or corruption is rife and landlords bribe the officials. Maybe the national chart could offer a clue.

A couple of examples. A natal chart of a Swiss may indicate military honours for him but the country is neutral so it is unlikely to happen. Has anyone noticed how often mass disasters happen to pilgrims? The ferry to the holy island sinks with all on board drowning. Is it down to bad transits for every individual concerned? Does the Devil rule the world and take perverse pleasure in causing tragedy to the godly. Neither. If you look carefully this kind of thing mostly happens in ramshackle nations with no clue about evacuation drills and enforcing passenger capacity.

If a tree falls in a forest does anyone do its chart to find out why? No it is just bad luck. Same as the brick that falls on your head.

Of course, these kind of events are a boon to chart rectifiers so if it does happen check your watch.

Matthew

9
waybread wrote:Chris, can you give some specific examples of other modern humanistic astrologers who write that if people had a rough time with a transit, it was their own darn fault?

It is not so much that this is a rule that is explicitly stated by any modern astrologers, since obviously it sounds kind of harsh when stated in that way, but it is just an observation about the logical conclusion that one could come to if you follow the line of thought that says that transits often manifest as external events when the native doesn't properly deal with them internally. This rule about how transits manifest is mentioned frequently enough in Hand's Planets in Transit that it left an impression on me when was still following my transits with that book every day, although I don't really feel like scouring through it for quotations at the moment. It is just a general observation.

10
Thanks, Chris and Paul.

I actually own a boat-load of modern astrology books, and can't think of any that would put the "brick" problem in such stark terms. Of course, it's been a while since I read most of them, so I wondered if you had specific books or astrologers in mind.

I think it is very easy for both traditional and modern western astrologers to criticize one another's chosen work, but sometimes by setting up a straw man.

This "brick" type of thinking was prevalent when I did the old "est" and Landmark forums and workshops ages ago, for about 13 or 14 years. For participants who had been used to construing themselves as victims for various reasons, it actually was empowering for them to realize that they had far more control over their lives than they previously understood.

Where I have seen the idea about manifesting transits come up (and I am embarrased now not to recall the source!) is in the idea that people can learn the empowering and disempowering interpretations of planets, aspects, signs, and houses. For example, Saturn may target us, like Motrin in the TV commercials, "where it hurts". But we can also learn (stoically, I suppose) Saturn's lessons of patience, hard work, getting by on very little, and developing a little gumption in the face of life's adversities.

So if a hard transit of Saturn comes up, ideally, to the extent that we have learned Saturn's "lessons", the transit will not blind-side us. It might not make us joyful, but we'll handle it. To the extent that we expect instant gratification, letting others do the hard work, overspending without consequences, or that life is unfair, a hard Saturn transit might effect us deeply and negatively.

I don't think there's too much that is woo-woo about this. It has a certain element of common sense to it. But this is about day-to-day activities, not the odd unanticipated catastrophe.

Interestingly, I once lived in a newly-purchased old house where the brick chimney (unbeknownst to me) badly needed having the mortar repointed. During a huge thunderstorm, some of the bricks came down in the driveway. Then more bricks fell during the next windy day. We were lucky nobody was hit. However, we had foolishly decided to skip having a contractor or home inspector preview the house before we closed on it. If we had done that, he probably would have caught the problem and we would have fixed it right away.

So some falling bricks are the individual's responsibility!

11
Chris Brennan wrote:That quote is actually a nice illustration of one of the potential pitfalls of modern humanistic psychological astrology. This notion that the natal chart only represents the psyche of the native, and that transits and such only manifest as external events when the individual doesn't properly deal with their own internal psychic conflicts. In this view the native is so empowered, and potentially has so much control over their own life that if something bad happens to them externally then it is essentially their own fault.

This is something that bothers me about humanistic astrology, because it seems like sometimes by going out of their way to make individuals feel empowered, they end up ignoring the fact that not everything is in under our control. Sometimes if a brick falls out of the sky and hits you in the head it isn't necessarily your fault, and no amount of self-examination is going to give you the Jedi powers that would have been necessary to avoid it.
Perfectly said, thank you.

12
Hello Paul,

Re: "The question is probably less to do with whether or not, on some divine scale, the brick is meant to hit the person, the question is more to do with whether or not the brick falls on your head because of you - in whatever way."

Can you explain what you mean, because the difference seems so subtle as to be imperceptible. If the brick is "meant for you", then it IS based on what you have done, else it would not be part of a current lesson.

Re: "In other words, had the person been more conscious/spiritual/enlightened/self aware would the brick have not fallen on them?"

There's no way to have the solution to that question, since we can't see both alternatives at once. Any differences in events between similar charts will be marked up to those differences. In other words, I can't think of an observable way to know the difference. If you have a primary direction involving a malefic and the 3rd House, this often signifies an accident. "An accident" (potentially) covers a lot of ground. Do you bend over to pick up a fallen spoon and throw your back out for 2 weeks forcing you to get the rest you had been neglecting yourself? or are you late for work and in a hurry and cruise through a stop sign only to get t-boned by a trash truck? or are you walking down the street minding your own business when a brick suddenly dislodges and comes crashing down on your head?

Personally, I think that we have certain themes that we are meant to experience (time-wise) otherwise the appropriate primary directions, etc., would not be in effect simultaneously.

Something to contemplate... let's say that (the hypothetical) you were adopted at birth and you never (consciously) knew your Mother. 50 years later, when she dies, it will be very clearly shown in your primary directions even though you never actually knew her and may never find out about the death.

Re: "In other words is it because of the psyche of the individual that the brick falls."

We draw to us the events that we need. Edgar Cayce was also clear on this, we are constantly meeting Self.

The question you seem to be posing is if some adjustment on the part of the "victim" can alter events. Through astrology, we can never really know this, since we can't have two parallel observable futures. Additionally, astrological symbolism carries with it so many layers...so many different levels of experience/events that the symbolism can still play out even though the results are two entirely different levels of occurrence. I personally think that events happen in order to force us to make some statement about ourselves through our reactions (meaning both physical and mental) to those events/themes. They are there for us to learn from... if we are already learning the lesson, we won't need to stay after school. (ie. the brick)

There's still another issue. I feel that I have a very lucky chart. Many dangerous circumstances have been in my life...many times something very terrible-seeming has happened in the short-term, but it has always turned out to be a long-term blessing in disguise. Because of this philosophy, I welcome the brick, it has liberation written on the side of it.

Re: "What has consciousness got to do with a brick?"

I think we just don't see things deeply enough to really understand the full ramifications. Let's (hypothetically) say that unknown to you, your Mother is dying and that you have a lengthy business trip scheduled to begin in a couple of days. Now, with no brick, you go on your business trip and miss your Mother's last moments. Throughout life, you blame yourself that you should have seen the signs...that you would have done anything to be able to be there and share those last moments. Now, in the other scenario, the brick falls, you have an injury and need stitches. The business trip is postponed and because of that, you are close enough to be there as your Mother's time comes to pass. In the short-term, you would side-step that brick if you saw it coming down. If you had any glimpse of the long-term (and your subconscious probably does) then you might likely change your path to get better positioned under the brick.

I don't think anything really happens by accident. Unless you want to modify the meaning of "accident" to mean "something seemingly unforeseeable that is only unforeseeable because we have limited vision into the full ramifications of all elements of our lives, but to one with higher perception, it was totally foreseeable."

Re: "Let's extend the analogy further, let's imagine it's no longer a brick, but a car. A car driven by a drunk driver who drives up onto the pavement after losing control of the car and knocks down and injures the person walking along it. Is it naive to think that the car wasn't meant to hit her?"

If it hits her, then yes it was/is naive to think it wasn't meant to... because if it wasn't meant to, a demolition derby could encircle the pedestrian and there would be nothing to fear.

Re: "And if so is it because of the psyche of the individual who was walking on the pavement?"

Define psyche as you are using it... If "psyche" is inclusive of the Soul's innate understanding of what it needs to learn and how that can come about, then I'd say yes. If you're meaning just what happens to be on the mind in the moment, then I'd say no.

Re: "It begs the question: Can accidents only happen if humans aren't involved?"

That begs an even better question. Is there really such a thing as an accident?

I think not. From a quickly-forgotten paper cut to an assassin's bullet, we constantly meet Self.

In the event of an "accident", don't focus on the WHAT, it will steal your attention away from the WHY. ;) [Astrologers have an advantage...the astrological symbolism will usually stress the why.]

"I can tell you fancy, I can tell you plain...
You give something up for everything you gain...
Since every pleasure has an edge of pain...
Pay for your ticket and don't complain."
- Dylan

Peace

James