The Seven Planets

Scion said:

The modern obsession with sunsigns is the direct result of a man named Alan Leo who "simplified" astrology by throwing out most anything that was complicated or effective.

Click to expand...

Now now now... don't be so mean to Alan Leo. I have some of his works on esoteric astrology, and it's pretty good stuff. Although yes, not really what one would read if they wanted an "indepth" idea about astrology, both esoteric and exoteric, but it's good for beginners - although to get a thorough understanding of astrology (it's spiritual and practical application), I always encourage people to explore Vedic Astrology, one of the oldest, and still surviving branches of astrology, which can be quite effectively used with the Tarot.

LOL Well, I'm never one to hold back, right?

I probably have the zeal of the converted when it comes to traditional. But truthfully, steppingoutside the 20th century Leo-inspired self-help pablum just changed so much for me. If there is value to be had in reading Leo, it can be gleaned elsewhere with less error, and it's far outweighed by his confusion and alterations to the practice. As you say SI, Jyotish is an exciting and rich tradition with solid roots in history, application, and scholarship. In fact, I've just started sticking my toe in by way of finding an answer to a historical problem BECAUSE of that lineage.

Incidentally, Similia, Alan Leo's birth name was William Frederick Allan. "Leo" was a sunsign pseudonym he adopted when he started his astrological missionary work... dumbing things down for the clockwatchers. The name was part of his proselytizing.

My main point with all my hopping around is that people often ascribe all of this modern twaddle to PREmoderns and at times it's so disconnected and misleading... like trying to discuss a cathedral using the evacuation instructions for a public bus. After years of sidestepping astrological study because of ignorance about its history, I stumbled onto the preLilly reality by way of the Book T's use of the decans... and it affected my headspace deeply.

In the same way I thought it was a good idea to hash out some "Seven Planets" facts as we push off into the Book T waters, I thought it was important to point out the ideological holocaust wrought by Alan Leo which has warped so much of the available material. The Golden Dawn's founders and members predate his "improvements," in the same way that the architects of Notres Dames predate the use of decorative aluminum siding.

Thank you for such detailed answers to my question... I think

So, while we're on the subject, what astrology were the GD lot most likely to have in mind when coming up with their stuff?

What I mean is, are there any specific sources that are likely to be central to GD notions of astrology?

Well, this is getting away from the Planets a bit, but maybe Similia will shift us into another new thread.

The astrology of the Golden Dawn is focused on horary and natal... and as such the founders would have been looking at most of the biggies, which in turn would have led to the writings of more obscure astrologers: the Tetrabiblos, the Corpus Hermetica, Dorotheus, Manilius, the Neoplatonists, the Stoics, the Picatrix (most likely in Lilly's Latin version)... which would likely have been the source for the Arabs (Al Biruni, Ibn Ezra, Mash'allah, Albumasar, etc... but I'd have to check because the GD may have had direct access), Guido Bonatti, William Lilly (his amazing Christian Astrology is available all over the net as a pdf)... ad infinitum The thing is, up through the 17th century, astrologers actually studied and knew their sources. So it's a fabric: tug at a thread and you'll find they're all connected. But Lilly would be a great place to start because he's a wonderful writer who loved combining study wth practice... and in many ways served as the headstone on the tradition as it was virtually slaughtered by scientific materialism.

Interestingly, though much of the GD teachings come straight from Agrippa (by way of Barrett's plagiarized material in The Magus), they don't take it wholesale. As Kwaw pointed out to me a while back, the GD decan system's planetary order is the one identified in the Picatrix as the Chaldean system, which deviates consdierably from the "Vedic" rulerships presented by Agrippa.

Also worth noting is that the astrology taught by the GD expanded between the 1st and 2nd orders (shifting from tropical to sidereal); this shift turns up in the use of Cor Leonis as a "starting point" for certain attributions.

A couple pages to check out:
http://www.societyofastrologers.com/whatistraditionalastrology.html
http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/traditionalastrology.html
http://www.new-library.com/zoller/
http://www.bendykes.com/
http://www.projecthindsight.com/index.html
http://www.leelehman.com/
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/
http://carnesoft.quotaless.com/ebooks.html (Free e-books)
http://www.worldastrology.net/
http://www.classicalastrologer.com/

A wonderful overview/interview with Ben Dykes at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/bdykes.html

Scion said:

The astrology of the Golden Dawn is focused on horary and natal...

Click to expand...

I'm glad you mentioned horary astrology because I was going to ask about it, knowing that it uses just the seven planets. I come to it by way of the Oracle of the Radiant Sun. When I've compared the cards in the oracle with the corresponding tarot cards, however, the meanings seem to have little to do with each other. Maybe the oracle isn't a good way to go about studying astrology as it relates to tarot because it seems to muddy the waters for me. I really like the illustrations on the cards, though, and the book has been instructive, on a very basic level.

I'm a fan of that little Oracle myself, both for the art and for what it's trying t do (not always successfully, I think).

Horary is one of those things that makes modern astrologers uncomfortable, much like prediction/fortunetelling makes Tarot readers uncomfortable. It's very concrete and its easily proved wrong. Geoffrey Cornelius has some stunning chapters about the topic in his Moment of Astrology... I was just talking to Enrique about this here in NY and practicaly forced him to read it even though astrology is NOT his thing at all. Still, like great Tarot, Horary uses the planets symbolically and they have to be read with a kind f figurative dexterity. Horary astrology is strongly analogous to cartomancy because of the use of position and symbol and the ctive prticiaption of the reader and client.

Which again gets us back to those 7 planets: Horary can answer ay question with those 7, so the idea of "adding" a planet is vaguely nonsensical. Like suggesting we should add "The Cubicle" to the list of trumps by way of updating them. Astrology is not astronomy, and talking about it in scientific terms tend to end ad ridiculo. Again, like Tarot actually.

If you're looking for a great intro to horary, I recommend Barclay's Horary Rediscovered as well as Frawley's Textbook. again, I don't know nearly enough about this stuff yet, but enogh to see the outline of its scope. And my own forays into horary have been eerie in the extreme.

Scion said:

LOL Well, I'm never one to hold back, right?

Click to expand...

And that Venusian charm and smile certainly help you get away with it

I probably have the zeal of the converted when it comes to traditional. But truthfully, steppingoutside the 20th century Leo-inspired self-help pablum just changed so much for me. If there is value to be had in reading Leo, it can be gleaned elsewhere with less error, and it's far outweighed by his confusion and alterations to the practice.

Click to expand...

Well, I will agree with you about stepping out of Leo-inspired works can enable a person to develop a greater understanding and appreciation of astrology (although when I began learning astrology, I preferred Sepharial and Grant Lewi to Leo, but then again, that was a LONG time ago). Although I wouldn't say that I've immersed myself within classical astrological texts, although will admit to have thumbed through some works of Lilly and others (which did take a bit of an effort on my part ... tend to be a bit of a 'simple southern girl' at times... *toss-toss* ... and I have the Oracle of the Radiant Sun deck and it's spectacular!), however, I will say that Leo and the others did help form a base of sorts when I began learning astrology, but yes, it is important to sift through most of the dribble, especially when they draw comparisons and try to fuse in Vedic/Jyotish principles (I used to laugh out aloud at that). Nevertheless, they do contain valuable amounts of information which many often tend to overlook, but at the oddest of times, do end up being quite valuable. After all, he is known as the father of modern astrology for a reason, but lets not hijack the thread further with a debate on that, cause I too don't think he really deserves that title (shall we call him an estranged step-child?)

As you say SI, Jyotish is an exciting and rich tradition with solid roots in history, application, and scholarship. In fact, I've just started sticking my toe in by way of finding an answer to a historical problem BECAUSE of that lineage.

Click to expand...

Well, to truly understand Jyotish, it's important to look into the philosophy of the Vedas (especially the Atharvaveda), for Jyotish is deeply philosophical, yet at the same time, can be incredibly "practical" as well. Although would really love to know about the historical problem this lineage caused that your dipped toe is digging to find an answer too (PM's would be good so as not to further hijack the thread )


On a personal note: I quite like the outer planets - well, mainly neptune, cause it plays such a prominent role in my chart

A lot of my degree work was on henotheism & south asian religions. Love the Vedas. But agains, that's a topic for a Jyotish thread elsewhere...

XOXO

S

Scion said:

The planets were the source of the energy that was filtered/charged by the sign.

Click to expand...

This really struck me yesterday, and I've been thinking about it overnight. Despite spending my last 6 months studying traditional astrology, I realized when it comes to tarot, I still look at the minor cards as a sign containing a planet, rather than a planet expressing through a sign. Thanks for that sentence Scion, very useful!

Scion said:

Well, this is getting away from the Planets a bit, but maybe Similia will shift us into another new thread.

Click to expand...

Nah, I think its good we get all these definitions under our belts, so we're all on the same page as we start to use this stuff. This is a great introduction to how the GD used the planets.

So which planets rules what signs, and where are the signs exalted, and all that stuff?