Dear Friends,

Jyotish is full of fear-mongering about saturn (wrongly, of course). I have written two articles on the web to try and counter that kind of "doom and gloom" thinking that sticks to the ancient craft, sadly even today!

http://www.boloji.com/astro/00331.htm

http://www.boloji.com/astro/00317.htm


Anyway, the point is simple. Whether following the tropical or sidereal zodiac (tropical astrology vs jyotish, for instance) regardless of the 'field' (signs) changing, the planets are the same! Think about that for a second. And since the planets are the same, their inherent nature must be identical between tropical and sidereal astrology. If this is not the case then there is a serious flaw in Astro-logic, won't you agree?

While similarities do exist, particularly in traditional western astrological descriptors for saturn (Ptolemy to Alan Leo or thereabouts) and in classical jyotish literature, the perspective about saturn has changed in modern times in the field of tropical astrology. This has been attributed to the move away from the 'doom and gloom' version of hundreds of years ago, as well as the entry of well-educated and intellectually sophisticated individuals with scientific and psychological backgrounds (Jungian, Humanistic, and other backgrounds), as well as a deliberate move away from the traditional astrology which was not serving well or being well-served in modern developed capitalistic industrial western societies.

It almost seems that saturn (and all other planets) have evolved, as the society did! But really, perhaps human being is now more capable of utilizing the immense potential of the inherent capabilities of the planets to bring the descriptors more in tune with their developmental level.

This is not a value judgment or pointing fingers at differences between different societies which are all just right where they are and where they should be.

Indeed classical jyotish texts were perhaps hinting at the changing perspective and meanings of astrological principles when they with uncanny foresight insisted that when reading a horoscope and applying astrology principle, due attention must be given to the 'societal' conditions, times (period of time) and surroundings and attributes of the individual nativity. The very same combination, perhaps they meant, would lead to different conclusions appropriate for the individual in a given stage/period and surroundings. In other words astrological rules must not be applied from a look-up table (if saturn is in 10th house,,, etc etc), nor must ever be treated as black and white.

Rohiniranjan

[quote="Sei no Senshi"][color=green][b]Definitely true that some of the planets have sort of gone about a change of face, particularly the malefic planets, and you can even see a similar change in Uranus comparing thoughts on him today with those of him back when he was first discovered.  He went from being 'a malefic of greater or equal power than Saturn' to being just...misunderstood, in my opinion.

I can't say I'm that big of a fan of modern psychological astrology, not saying I don't see it's purpose, but I think it just gets crazy sometimes.  But, I do think the biggest difference in traditional/modern astrology is a focus on time-perspective.  Traditional astrology seems much more concerned with what the native will have as opposed to what the native currently is.  I just got finished reading an article on the classical useage of the triplicities and all of the examples they gave showed how the triplicities [i]fortold[/i] the life path of the native.  This fortelling does not seem to be such the primary focus of modern astrology, which just seems to be focused on the native themselves and what they are like now, their potential and that sort of thing.

I do think a lot of students of modern astrology need to start in traditional astrology, but that's just me and my personal opinion coming out there.  I think there's a big difference in the considerations of when a planet is acting maleveolently or not.  I daresay many modern astrologers would say someone with Saturn in Aquarius Squaring anything would give a lot of stress and ill fortune to whatever planet is receiving the Square, but it seems in traditional astrology that this set up had much fortune in it as Saturn would be pleased in his day house of Aquarius and would not be nearly as likely to act out and cause upsets as he were if he were Squaring from Leo from where he is most uncomfortable.

Not exactly Western vs. Vedic...but...eh.  [/color][/b][/quote]

Oh Absolutely S!
Anyone who dares skip daycare/kindergarten (Traditional) would have a big problem in school and university if you get the analogy B-)

Psychological perspective is very interesting and does not reach everyone as readily unless they took the pains to study and practice it and that takes a few earthly decades, I am afraid -- unless someone has been lying about their age

Peace...

Rohiniranjan

test