posted March 28, 2007 10:37 PM              

Goethe described...

There sits Prometheus, forming the image of a man, beside him a basket of clay, before him a finished figure receiving from Minerva a soul in the form of a butterfly.

posted April 16, 2007 10:10 PM              

In the article it says:

quote:

---

I know it will surprise you, but the sphinx actually unlocks the mystery of the zodiac. It is fascinating to note that in the Temple of Esneh in Egypt, there is a great sky painting in the portico on the ceiling which shows the whole picture of the zodiac with all of its constellations. Between the figures of Virgo, The Virgin, and Leo, The Lion, there is carved the figure of the sphinx with the head of a woman and the body of a lion. The woman's face is looking at The Virgin and the lion's tail is pointing to Leo, telling us that we begin with The Virgin and end with Leo. (D. James Kennedy) (872:19)

---

In this site, the order goes this way:

INTRODUCTION

VIRGO: THE DIVINE ANDROGYNE

THE BLACK VIRGIN

ANTICHRIST IN VIRGO

THE GREAT CHYREN

LIBRA: EQUALITY & FRATERNITY

SCORPIO: THE SERPENT HOLDER

SAGITTARIUS: GATE OF THE GODS

CAPRICORN: THE SEA BEAST

AQUARIUS: THE UNHOLY SPIRIT

PISCES: THE FISHES

ARIES: THE RAM

TAURUS: ORION, THE STARGATE

GEMINI: THE DIVINE TWINS

CANCER: HEAVEN'S GATE

ANTICHRIST IN CANCER

THE THREE BEARS

FALSE PROPHET IN CANCER

THE MICHAEL IN CANCER

LEO: THE LION KING
http://watch.pair.com/leo.html

------------------
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

posted June 17, 2007 05:27 AM              

quote:

---

Pluto is mentioned many times by Aleister Crowley in the Book of Thoth, a book about his tarot deck written in the 1940s. This book is actually a good source of information on Pluto. But it was not until 1973 that a small book was issued on this planet, by Isabel Hickey, titled Pluto or Minerva: The Choice is Yours. A major book did not appear until around 1985, when Jeff Green published Pluto: Evolutionary Journey of the Soul and pretty much assigned Pluto the meaning that it has today in poplar astrology, something associated with spiritual evolution.

---

quote:

---

Isabel Hickey, in her 1973 pamphlet, Pluto or Minerva: The Choice is Yours, wrote what was probably the first coherent delineation of Pluto in the English language, emphasizing the dual nature of Pluto, which she proposed represents, "The energy in us which is unknown on the surface but which works in the depths of our being. It rules the underworld in us, as well as the highest part of us. In its lowest aspect it can be working silently within and unknown under the surface and then erupt with violence."

She describes two different methods of operation of this planet. "The highest aspect of Pluto (Minerva, goddess of wisdom), works in a different fashion [than the lowest]. It changes the individual from within and comes imperceptibly like the dawn of a new day. It changes the individual so his is never again in the same state of consciousness. Purged of the dross, he is refined and regenerated."

Most people experience this dualism as a combination of enforced change from the outside, and deep evolutionary movement from the inside.

What is interesting is that Hickey came up with this delineation in 1973, after much observation of her clients -- but five years before the discovery of Charon. In later commentary shortly before her death, she noted that with the discovery of Charon (which was not immediately named), the Minerva aspect of Pluto had emerged from the cosmos as a distinct, tangible entity, and had in a sense been borne out.

---

posted June 17, 2007 07:37 PM              

Taurus: Venus
Libra: Minerva
Virgo: Vulcan

Pan-Horus??? Apollo???

posted June 18, 2007 01:17 AM            

Yes, Silverstone... Venus to Taurus, Minerva to Libra and Vulcan to Virgo, in my way of reckoning is what seems to make sense, particularly when set against the Inconjunct aspect pattern of Rulerships and Detriments as I illustrated in this article.

Like Linda, I do believe that each Sign should be allocated one ruler, so 12 Signs should mean 12 planets.

As I think Linda was in error in regard to Taurus NOT belonging to Venus, I am not quite sure what to say about Pan-Horus.

To the best of my knowledge, Apollo is another name for the Sun (Sol). Since the Earth is a planet, I don't think it needs a ruler... Signs have rulers, not planets.

But I also am not in favor of throwing 1000 asteroids into natal charts just because we have an ephemeris for them. When I READ a chart I use the 10 planets, the 12 Houses, The Signs and the Aspects.

I do not use Chiron, nor any of the other asteroids. Nor will I EVER acknowledge any of them as RULERS of Signs, to me, that is an atrocity! But that is simply my preference.

In an Esoteric sense I believe that each sign has a unique ruler, but when I DO astrology I use what I know. All of the other things are speculative at best though food for spiraling to be sure.

Just my opinion. Hope that helps a bit.

In the Light...

A

posted June 18, 2007 05:45 AM              

Cheers,
Silverstone

posted June 22, 2007 04:01 AM              

Since the other thread seems to be getting off subject, I'll reply this here:

quote:

---

Aselzion
Moderator
Posts: 1338
From: North Andover, MA
Registered: Nov 2002
posted June 21, 2007 11:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings...
Though Libra is often "misunderstood", as it were, remember the important question... why is it the only sign represented by an object (The Scale) as opposed to an entity? In this regard, I do believe that it is misunderstood on a Spiritual level. But so are Gemini and Capricorn. Well, I suppose on a metaphysical level, one could pitch a good case that many of the Signs are not understood by the exoteric astrologer.

Gemini? Any idea as to why this Sign might be misunderstood, or perhaps underestimated by the average astrologer?

Capricorn... now there's a story.... it has to do with the correct way that the glyph for the sign is drawn, and what that represents. Again, any thoughts?

Best Wishes and Blessed Solstice...

The opinionated Astrologer...

A

P.S. We have to go deeper than the Personality or Sun Sign level here. This is fairly esoteric. If this is not what was intended for this thread, perhaps a new one should be opened if anyone feels inclined to pursue this matter. Just a thought.

P.P.S. I cast my vote again for Minerva as true ruler of Libra, and Venus as perectly happy in Taurus!

------------------
"The ALL is MIND; the Universe is Mental." *** The Kybalion

---

Aselzion...

quote:

---

Gemini? Any idea as to why this Sign might be misunderstood, or perhaps underestimated by the average astrologer?

---

Understimated... hmmm. I find them highly versatile, but I've never underestimated them; using the negative aspects, I think many people may not see that they can be highly treacherous, and only see the good in them...just like Scorpios. However, Geminis are incredibly intelligent; they think with their heads, but lack consistency and patience. I think because of Gemini's quickness to change moods and topic conversations, many people misunderstand them. They are just very versatile-- Gemini is a complete question mark with the emphasis on exploring... they require an audience, someone to genuienly be interested in everything Gemini has to say--this is one of Gemini's deepest needs. I think Linda was right, Gemini is always clever but not wise.

As to Capricorn, hmmm, here's a question for you Aselzion, why do some astrologers refer to them as Sea Goats? Ancient Astrology does, I think!

I think the wheel of Astology is so complex, some Astrologers believe that we begin with Virgo and end with Leo. I'm still looking into that~

Also, Scorpio, I believe, is the most misunderstood~ Do you agree?

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/014026-4.html

posted June 25, 2007 01:40 PM            

Hello Silver, as a part of the answer to this question, I will copy what I have written elsewhere, though it does not all apply to your post here, I think I might ask you to look at it in a similar vein, and I mean no disrespect. But as Nahtan was fond of saying to Linda (and I will paraphrase badly): 'it does no good for you to do their spiraling for them'. In other words, when the questions become more statements, I would be most happy to discuss my thoughts.

Again, I would implore more thought on the matter and an avoidance of being burdened by overly PSYCHOLOGICAL interpretations of these signs and planets, but more attuned to their Spiritual meanings.

I have my thoughts, which I will gladly share, but I was hoping to generate thought spiraling, in the nature of Linda's Nahtan.

The GLYPH for Gemini is not in question... that was related to Capricorn, and the hidden meaning in its glyph, the one that looks like the VS, not the one that looks like a combined 7 and 6, although that might tell us equally as much about Capricorn after a bit of meditation.

I think in some ways with this Cosmic Science, that we have gone too far into the realms of Psychology, and removed ourselves from the realm of the Spirit. Though the One (Spirituality) actually does encompass the other.

Astrology is, above all a symbolic language. It allows those Gifted with the skill, to read God's 'handwriting on the wall', as it were. Remember there is both an exoteric Astrology and an Esoteric Astrology. (though here I do not necessarily refer to that horror described by Alice Bailey) The questions that I pose are designed to open up the Mind to Esoteric Astrology, and what I have been seeing in response seems to be more related to the exoteric side.

Any thoughts?

Blessings...

The Opinionated Astrologer

A

posted July 05, 2007 04:13 AM              

I just noticed your response, thank you!
There's so much to contemplate. You know, all of this spiraling bring me back to Linda's Star Notes, quote:

quote:

---

Would you like to continue this numerological spiraling a bit further? Ponder these truths. While Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris, Vulcan and Mercury were the names of their twin children (Mercury,
male - Vulcan, female). Zero or 0 is the number of Pluto, ruler of Scorpio, closely associated with Horus. 10 is Isis
and Osiris. The 0 of the double number represents Horus (Pluto-Scorpio) - and the 1 of the 10 whispers that, instead
of twins (which all births once were - explained in TNS), Horus was a single birth (for good reason) - Horus was one child only.The number of both Mercury and Vulcan (the twins) is 5. Therefore, the number of Gemini and Virgo is 5,since both are presently ruled by Mercury. Vulcan and Mercury were twins. Think about it. Gemini, the Twins, ruled by the number 5 and by Mercury - Mercury now ruling Virgo, until Vulcan (also a 5) is re-discovered.

Therein lies an astounding ancient mystery...for aeons hidden behind these astrological and numerological symbols.

---

Why is she bringing Scorpio in this? Perhaps Scorpio doesn't have its correct planet? Hence, the recent

posted July 07, 2007 02:39 PM            

Hrrmmm....

quote:

---

Would you like to continue this numerological spiraling a bit further? Ponder these truths. While Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris, Vulcan and Mercury were the names of their twin children (Mercury, male - Vulcan, female). Zero or 0 is the number of Pluto, ruler of Scorpio, closely associated with Horus. 10 is Isis and Osiris. The 0 of the double number represents Horus (Pluto-Scorpio) - and the 1 of the 10 whispers that, instead of twins (which all births once were - explained in TNS), Horus was a single birth (for good reason) - Horus was one child only.The number of both Mercury and Vulcan (the twins) is 5. Therefore, the number of Gemini and Virgo is 5,since both are presently ruled by Mercury. Vulcan and Mercury were twins. Think about it. Gemini, the Twins, ruled by the number 5 and by Mercury - Mercury now ruling Virgo, until Vulcan (also a 5) is re-discovered.
Therein lies an astounding ancient mystery...for aeons hidden behind these astrological and numerological symbols.

---

Well I think we need to look at this in light of the Inconjunct Pattern that I described earlier in this topic, and also note the differences between Numbers and Planets and Numbers and Signs and so forth.

Modern Astrology (as I keep preaching) has a sloppy tendency to EQUATE Signs with Houses and Planets, and quite simply, this is an OVERsimplification. Though it might be useful in teaching at the most basic, beginning level, at some point the more practiced Astrologer, will need to "remove the training wheels", as it were. Here I would add that if Every factor in a Horoscope can mean Everything, then NOTHING means Anything. Please see this article by Traditional Horary Astrologer Sue Ward for more on this matter:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/articles/houses.pdf

I feel that the same is true for equating Signs with Numbers, simply because there is a correspondence between Planets and Numbers, if you see what I mean.

Have a look at this link, and then let me know if you see where I might be going with this.

Thanks for asking all the thought provoking questions!

Blessed Be...

The Opinionated Astrologer

A

posted July 11, 2007 02:08 AM            

A

posted July 13, 2007 02:50 AM              

I wanted to tell you that I read your response.
I'm letting it *sink in*
You gave me so much to contemplate. Hmmmm

I'll be back!
Silverstone

posted December 08, 2007 06:24 PM            

Silver.. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

Bright Blessings...

A

posted January 30, 2009 11:43 PM            

Bumped for HSC and anyone else with an interest!

Blessings...

A

posted February 03, 2009 05:43 AM            

I only realized a pattern in the traditional rulerships for the first time a few weeks ago; sparked by one of the threads.

I do understand what you are saying about the inconjunct and I would like to reflect on that part further but my line of thought would probably be in terms of an holistic view of the chart as it pertains to the incarnate.

The pattern of rulership in the horoscope as follows:

begin with, as you say Leo and its ruler the Sun, then the next 'planet' in traditionally accepted celestial order is the Moon ruling Cancer,
then either side of Sun and Moon, the two Mercury ruled,
then either side of the Mercury ruled, the two Venus ruled,
then either side of the Venus ruled, the two Mars ruled,
then either side of the Mars ruled, the two Jupiter ruled,
then either side of the Jupiter ruled, two Saturn ruled,
traditionally that is...

What a strong pattern, wouldn't you say! and with Earth, of course central. It appears to negate any idea that Venus does not rule dually over Taurus and Libra.

But now we also have accepted the modern rulers, but there doesn't seem to be any pattern at this stage and it doesn't seem likely that they have dual rulerships. So yeah, I would suggest tho, that there are other modern rulers and that they are most likely to be trans-Saturnian. Maybe even, a pattern is there but we are only at the beginning of the puzzle.

I can understand your hesitancy to accept Chiron, for instance, but hey, we accept the Moon. I think its possible that we may end up considering another moon - perhaps of one of the trans-Saturnian planets.

Also there may be importance to the Leo and Aquarius cusps because of the symmetry in the pattern, well that is, aside from the moon but this is considered at least the other luminary and is a traditional pairing with the Sun symbolically. The diametric along 5th cusp to 11th cusp also separates positive and negative of the ruler pairings and the pattern in this is maintained.

In terms of aspect:

the two luminaries, semi-sextile to each other

the two Mercurys, in square

the two Venuses, inconjunct to one another

the two Mars, inconjunct to one another

the two Jupiters, in square

the two Saturns, semi-sextile to one another

and the trines, the elemental groups