61
varuna2 wrote:
It seemed interesting to consider the characteristics of Rahu and its co-rulership of Aquarius with the decision of modern so-called Western astrology to place the co-rulership of Aquarius to Uranus, in light of the similar appearing, modern descriptions of Uranus with the attributes of Rahu.
Are they that similar? this is a reasonable if brief synopsis of the Psychological Uranus, (albeit a bit ''American'', ie naive or simplistic, some might propose).

''The planet Uranus is empirically associated with the principle of change, rebellion, freedom, liberation, reform and revolution, and the unexpected breakup of structures; with sudden surprises, revelations and awakenings, lightning-like flashes of insight, the acceleration of thoughts and events; with births and new beginnings of all kinds; and with intellectual brilliance, cultural innovation, technological invention, experiment, creativity, and originality. In addition to the occurrence of sudden breakthroughs and liberating events, Uranus transits are linked to unpredictable and disruptive changes; hence the planet is often referred to as the "cosmic trickster." Another set of themes associated with Uranus is a concern with the celestial and the cosmic, with astronomy and astrology, with science and esoteric knowledge, and with space travel and aviation. With respect to personal character, Uranus is regarded as signifying the rebel and the innovator, the awakener, the individualist, the dissident, the eccentric, the restless and wayward (Cosmos and Psyche, 93). Many essential attributes of the Uranus archetypal principle are conveyed by the mythic figure of Prometheus.

Many of these associations are empirically related to important phenomena surrounding the Discovery of Uranus.''

http://www.archaijournal.org/planets.html#uranus

62
hi nixx,

that link where you are drawing that from has as senior editoral advisor richard tamas who wrote a book on uranus that is supposed to be quite good and that i haven't read -
Prometheus the Awakener: An Essay on the Archetypal Meaning of the Planet Uranus, 1995; Spring Publications, Woodstock, CT (ISBN 0-882-14221-6)
it is a small pricey book..

63
Kirk,

Ah References enfin, now we are cooking. So we have Greene's view which Perry gets into more in his review

??Many students of astrology, and even many professional astrologers, describe Uranus as the "planet of individuality". This phrase, according to Liz Greene, gives the wrong impression of Uranian impulses, which have nothing to do with personal unfoldment according to an internal blueprint. Uranus is an outer planet, and as such offers a worldview which may be transformative and revolutionary to the collective. Those dominated by Uranus often have little awareness of personal values and personal identity. Greene warns: "Please try to rid yourselves of the association of Uranus with individuality, because if you use this term when you read a chart, you may go badly wrong with it".??

and now a few ''Modern'', are they American? Bods, and a couple of Neo trads, who appear to fall into her going badly wrong road, here and there, with thinking Aquarius is fundamentally linked to ??individuality??

So we are in a position where the not infrequent way Psychological Astrologers look around them and become very critical of early and mid 20th century astrology and a fair bit, if not most, of what is still with us today, including some of the less intelligent or informed Traditional notions, has been made apparent.

I suppose if you are smitten with the idea of rulerships needing visibility and feel the Thema is unduly threatened then I recognise this is problematic. I?m not sure for PA?s these are primary considerations although they are major ones, a subtle difference! I think the logic is more to do with finding an empirical validity to Uranus?s position which tells them more about the meaning of the house Aquarius rules and noticing, as they see it, a certain innovative, experimental and eccentric quality to the affairs of the psyche under consideration.

For example, Yoko Ono. A 5th house Aquarius Sun and Venus dynamic. Uranus here rules or co rules the 5th, for traditionalists I recall this is the house of pleasure even sex and for PA?s the house of where one is at ones most subjective, authentic and where and how pleasure is sought. More exactly if you had a day off and the world was your oyster what would get your mojo rising. Yoko?s Uranus is in the 7th and we can say her ?pleasure? was enhanced or this was her intention ,by linking up with a younger, detached, quirky, cerebral, outspoken, unconventional (albeit not as much as her) already married, etc partner. With the Uranus in the 7th she requires a partner who enables her Sun to flourish in the 5th, i.e. allow her to continue doing her radical art. I strongly suspect (and do prove me wrong if you fancy knocking up a few hundred words on Yoko) a traditional lens on her would result in us revisiting the Dykes / Jackson Horoscopic futility where the aspects of the life which interest today?s mind are not available to the astrologer solely operating with the language and thinking available to them from 500 plus years ago. Although it may pick up one or two relevant components missed by those who ignore the Antiscions. After all this is the point Hand and the erudite crew verbalise that even if you want to keep Uranus away from ruling/co-ruling or in your view on occasions corrupting Aquarius you still have to somehow bring the terrains of Uranus and the other transpersonal into the chart to enable the delineation to stimulate the psyches we find ourselves with now and relate to the cosmology we operate within today. Even if this is for Western Astrologers still by a large an Idealist Platonic one.

Most of the PA schema seems to be rooted in ideas from way back when, pre CE perhaps?, so seeing Aquarians as friendly, detached and cerebral as far as I know is not a radical divergence from the notions of yesteryear. They may not be that bothered about the hot cold, dry .... , from memory this is Ptolemy?s Naturalism, I could be wrong here?. If so wouldn?t? this ?thinking? be a corruption of the fundamental premise of Western Astrology being a Judicial activity?

Where we may be misconnecting a little Kirk is in relation to your perception of Forrest as being a ?mainstream? and influential figure, at least in Europe, Here he would be seen as peripheral, a touch heretical and a bit non mainstream, i.e. it?s not Psychological Astrology which tends to be the dominant model/philosophy in Europe as far as I can see. As to Llewellyn George, Davison, etc I don?t think someone who takes Astrology seriously today would look at these books now, which for me were redundant from about 1975 onwards. Thus my slight bewilderment as to your focus here, But I do recognise you do get quite a few folks on astro online forums who do get their ideas from antiquated 20th century cookbooks. There is a prolific poster at astro.com who still thinks Hickey?s book has some relevance today, which for me is a bit like walking onto centre court dressed as Rod Laver with a wooden racket and asking Rafa which end he wants. So I think you are broadly speaking on the money here in attacking ?Popular? astrology. The problem is Popular astrology and ''Modern'' astrology, the type of stuff that comes out of the Sophia centre for example, tend to have little in common with each other.

64
james_m wrote:hi nixx,

that link where you are drawing that from has as senior editoral advisor richard tamas who wrote a book on uranus that is supposed to be quite good and that i haven't read -
Prometheus the Awakener: An Essay on the Archetypal Meaning of the Planet Uranus, 1995; Spring Publications, Woodstock, CT (ISBN 0-882-14221-6)
it is a small pricey book..
I haven't read it either, I would hope Greene took what was useful in it and incorporated it into her book which as far as I know is still seen as the definitive or seminal book on this planet.

71
Kirk wrote:IHey, maybe they were just collective pawns moved into place by the force represented through Uranus.

But we don't really want to go on about the boomers, do we? :???:
Yep, who's to say for sure who's who?

72
Ed F wrote: Yep, who's to say for sure who's who?
Nice.

I was about to pipe up with a request for a definition of "individualistic". As far as I can tell it means "independent". I have a hard time following threads that don't define terms. I understand the ambiguity of concepts like "traditional" and "modern" but I wish we could start at the beginning, with language.