(Dialogue between Michael Robbins and Phillip Lindsay)
MICHAEL: “When we state, for instance, that the Sun is ‘in Aries’ it conveys an esoteric truth but not an exoteric fact. The Sun was in Aries at the beginning of this great cycle, but is not in exactly the same position when it is ‘found’ in that sign”
But the “esoteric truth” is that, somehow, even though there is no “exoteric alignment”, the energy of the “constellation” Aries is, nevertheless, being transmitted through the “sign”. In my opinion, this is occuring because of an “esoteric” relation between “constellation” and “sign”.
PHILLIP: EA266-7: “It is the law of affinity which produces the magnetic pull and the dynamic response between constellations and planets within the solar system and between some particular planet and the forms of life upon another planet and the “impending energies”, as they are called, “which are being received from some major source”. The law of affinity relates that which is within the solar system to that which is without – “some major source” – i.e. constellations. It doesn’t matter that the constellations are not synchronous to the signs – that would be a physical impossibility by degrees anyhow. The Law of Affinity cuts through exoteric astronomers’ concrete conceptions (when deriding astrology) of there having to be alignment.
MICHAEL: The Sun was in Aries at the beginning of this great cycle, but is not in exactly the same postion when it is ‘found’ in that sign”.
Here there is a mixture. D.K. begins the sentence talking “sidereally”. The Sun was “sidereally” (in the Heavens) in the constellation Aries at the beginning of a “certain” great cycle. It is difficult to tell “which” cycle He means, as at the beginning of our 2160 yr. Age of Pisces, the Sun was constellationally in zero degrees of Aries going into 30 degrees of Pisces(they are the same).
PHILLIP: I think he’s talking about the coincidence of the 2 zodiacs here, and how they have drifted apart. Exoteric astrologers agree that tropical/sidereal coincided at around this time – Fagan gives 221AD. If we use DK’s ayanamsa 2117-2160 = 23BC – it is much closer to the “start of the great cycle”.
MICHAEL: Around the time of Christ’s last appearance in Palestine, a great 250,000 yr. cycle ended (Sun orbiting the Pleiades?). Right ‘now’ (more or less) a 25,000 yr Piscean cycle is ending and so is (more or less) a 2160 year cycle ending. Is the 250,000 yr cycle “also” keyed to our zodiac of 12 and its constellations?
PHILLIP: I think so. The Monads whose life cycle have a correspondence to 250,000 years, are incarnating through this planet. Also, is this cycle 10 Platonic Years of 25,000 (25,000 X 10 = 250,000) – therefore systemic rather than cosmic? A 25,000 Pisces cycle is ending, but EA322: “Pisces is the starting point on the clockwise wheel “at this time” for the greater zodiacal round of 25,000 years”. There seems to be 25,000 year wheels that go in both directions. (I am aware of all the quotes for the Pisces ending cycle of 25,000 years.)
MICHAEL: “Perhaps there is a great “sidereal” alignment (of the Earth’s Equinotical Axis) with the contellations Cancer/Capricorn, while individual human units are being born “tropically” for the “first time” in the “sign” Pisces. Anyway–H.P.B (now, according to Helena Roerich, “Master Blavatsky”)—do you think her potent spirituality would have been more authentically represented with the Sun in sidereal Cancer and sidereal Gemini Rising? I am interested in people’s opinions on this.
PHILLIP: No, Cancer rising suited her physically and psychically. Leo sun too. Then there’s HPB’s Libran moon (and Venus), which would (both) be Virgo sidereally, leaving nothing in Libra whatsoever. EA229: “Hence the effectiveness of Libra upon the physical plane…a person equipped to do this…HP Blavatsky”.
PHILLIP: It would be interesting to do a study of the physical distances/magnitudes of stars within the 12 constellations, to ascertain their physical wholistic relationship, and how much that supports the astrological/mythological model. (See EA28)
MICHAEL: What you, Phillip, call for above, would be a study of tremendous value—I suspect rather beyond the capacities of even quite good esoteric astrologers. But the possibility must be stated!
MICHAEL: I do think, however, that the constellational aggregations are not merely “visual”, and that there is a definite interplay between the Solar Logoi Who comprise our zodiacal constellations. While the degree of Their participation in “constellational wholeness” may vary from star to star (i.e., from Solar Logos to Solar Logos), there is, I think, such a thing as a “Constellational” Logos (TCF, p. 293), Who expresses through aggregations of stars (of which only “seven” stars need to be major—just as in our solar system only “seven” planets of the 115+ need to be “major”).
PHILLIP: I totally concur.
MICHAEL: a) What is the source? b) How do we actually “receive” the energy of the source?
PHILLIP: “receive” the energy of the source – EA227-8, EA 609-11
MICHAEL: I look forward to your description. I am, however, asking for the modus operandi. I know the “paths” as D.K. has given them, but the “means” is obscure, and no doubt, highly “mathematical” having to do with “resonance-entrainment”.
PHILLIP: I thought “modus operandi” was what you originally meant. This is the core of the “Science of Relationships” (Esoteric Astrology) and a great many mysteries abound. We can start with the etheric web I guess, and look at the Sources of influence, how the thoughtform currents under karmic law are “directed” by the informing entities, precipitate, translate, modify, filter, transmute – on the way to their various destinations – via the constellations, signs, planets etc. Esoteric Astrology “plots” those inter-relationships and transfer of energy. Again, its working from above to below, but also getting clues by working from below to above. For instance, understanding the reception of energy by human/planetary chakras and their transmission to the endocrine gland/country, galvanizing the hormones/humans into activity within the bloodstream/nations, is a KEY.
MICHAEL: Surely a simple zodiacal “sign” (tropically considered) cannot concern the “destiny” of a Plantetary Logos, but a “constellation” can certainly concern such a destiny.
PHILLIP: EA21, “It might be added in addition that the signs of the zodiac are concerned primarily with the life expression of the Heavenly Man (as far as our planet is concerned) and therefore with the destiny and life of the planetary Logos”.
I disagree. Although the HM responds to the constellations, the “life expression” is through the lower vehicles of the PL, to which the tropical zodiac is related. What about the Destiny of the Nations – the anatomy for that “life expression”? Consider also your later remark:
MICHAEL: “So much depends upon whether we consider the origin of the tropical signs to be ….a structural factor within the Planetary Logos (perhaps created by the Logos’ own thought). What about the Destiny of the Nations – the anatomy for that “life expression”?
Is the tropical zodiac conceived as being the etheric body of the earth?
PHILLIP: EA12: “the energy which emanates from the earth itself…the emanating qualities and forces which are the contribution of our earth’s etheric body to the larger whole”. I would say that the etheric energies are “independant” of the zodiac when looked at in this light. In light of another section of EA12: “Astrologers have always emphasised the incoming influences and energies as they beat upon and play through our little planet…” This seems to suggest that the “incoming influences and energies” are from planets, zodiac signs and constellations. Yet it must be considered that they are continually conditioning the Earth, so her “emanating” qualities are really a combination of “incoming influences” and whatever is “arising from within”. Then there is the etheric web which connects to everything…
I would hazard a guess that the terrestrial zodiac relates to the astral body of the Earth – hence the glamours and illusions associated with astrology. This is a HUGE diversion right now, but if we take the TCF512 and EA362, 362 – with Venus as the common factor, it may be a good place to start. We really need to address one topic at a time.
MICHAEL: I do not know the astronomy here, but does the Sun have an axial tilt with respect to a different and greater Plane or Ecliptic? Maybe someone knows. I will have to study it. I am staying that our Solar System as a whole may be experiencing a Great Age quite different from the Age correlated with Earth’s Platonic Year and certainly different from the Earth’s lesser Precessional Age.
PHILLIP: “A 25,000 Pisces cycle is ending, but EA322: “Pisces is the starting point on the clockwise wheel “at this time” for the greater zodiacal round of 25,000 years”. There seems to be 25,000 year wheels that go in both directions. (I am aware of all the quotes for the Pisces ending cycle of 25,000 years)
May have confused things here with the wrong quote, as you say later on: “It does appear as if these great Platonic Years also are proceeding “clockwise”, otherwise, Aquarius (25,000) would not follow Pisces (25,000).”
MICHAEL: Of course, if there is a reason for D.K. saying 25,000, instead of 25, 858… (See Stephen Pugh’s comments here on the generic 25,000 year Ray 2 cycle.)
PHILLIP: I intuit it is a rounded off figure, but, you never know. HPB’s figure was 25,868: (from 6 vols SD) 25,868 – Cycle of Greater Zodiac; ‘divided into 8 several kinds of men’ (SD2-376); ‘divided into 370 esoteric cycles’ – SD2-73)
