you use the Transneptunians, it is likely that you will be challenged by
someone who is very skeptical. Therefore, what would you say to an
astrologer who will not accept Uranian Astrology ? They may say "After
all, they are only imaginary planets, so why waste time on them ?"
are a number of responses, given by various astrologers.
The better questions that should be asked are, ”Does the use of these
’planets’ work in the horoscope?” Are astrological insights gained by the
use of these ”planets”? Here the answer is a resounding yes! The ”planets”
have been studied and used advantageously for more than seven decades.
I would demonstrate the usefulness of Uranian Astrology with some examples,
both based on their own chart and that of a well known figure. All
one can do is present the facts and rest is entirely up to the free will
of the person asking for insight.
Actually, it would it be better to call the Transneptunians "Points"
rather than "Planets" because they are in fact "hypothetical" even
though there is evidence of of their validity - they are not
(at this point in time) physical bodies. The TNPs were never
really sighted, not even detected by the famous, sacred, modern,
sharp-sighted Hubble Telescope. This fact is often used as "a winning argument",
by astrologers that discard and discredit the use of TNPs (the "imaginary
planets, if you can't see them, they don't
exist, and don't work").
Usually a wise, knowledgeable traditional astrologer would accept Uranian
techniques, but not the use of the TNP's. They often say that they favor
Ebertine's approach to that of Witte's. Those who discard Uranian
astrology altogether are, IMHO just the mediocre and ignorant ones (and
you'd be surprised how many such ignorant people who call themselves
"astrologers" exist, who can't tell the difference between a fixed star
and an asteroid). They are often motivated by fear of things they cannot
understand, for they have a limited thinking capacity, and lack the open
mind needed for working with astrology. Theses are very much like the
scientists (so called sceptics) who discard astrology as a whole, mainly
because they never bothered to learn, practice and explore it, and so are
absolutely ignorant of it. I wouldn't bother to argue with such
"astrologers". From my bitter experience, they are very much stuck with
their narrow concepts, and won't listen to the voice of reason. They take
pride in their ignorance.
The old adage “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. Besides
these PP’s have been around for the last 50 years and have been
work, time and time, again. I would demonstrate the usefulness
technique to the client with some examples, both based on their
and that of a well known figure. All one can do is present
the facts and
rest is entirely up to the free will of the person asking for insight.
After all, that’s the reason they consulted you in the first place.
What I would say in reply to someone who made that statement to me is
the same thing I would say to a non-astrologer who questions the validity
of astrology. "It is not my place to try and convince you one way or
another but if you haven't seriously looked at it, or know nothing of how
it works - how can you say it doesn't?"
When it comes to real astrologers, that accept Cosmobiology, but not the
validity of the TNP's, I would use the following arguments:
1. "The Uranian astrologer uses all these techniques plus eight additional
”planets” in each horoscope. Have these ”planets” been sighted? Is it
claimed that these ”planets” exist as physical bodies? The answer to both
questions is no, but this is unimportant. The better questions that should
be asked are, ”Does the use of these ’planets’ work in the horoscope?”
astrological insights gained by the use of these ”planets”? Here the
answer is a resounding yes! The ”planets” have been studied and used
advantageously for more than seven decades. Please note that this is much
longer than Pluto has been studied and used. Several of these ”planets”
were first postulated during World War I, predating the sighting of Pluto
by 15 years."
Or: "Try it for yourself, for a few years, and only then make up
your mind about it !!!"
A few weeks ago, I had some correspondence with a very good astrologer,
that made this statement about "why use imaginary planets, that the Hubble
telescope can't see, when we have so many asteroids, that it sure can see,
and that work so well"
The arguments I came up with were:
1. Some astrologers mock the use of Asteroids, calling them "non-planets",
rocks, debris and rubble that can't influence us because they are too
small. Some of them say:"If you include Asteroids, why not include all
made Satellites and place them on the chart too???..still you yourself
asteroids a lot in your work. Why?
2. As for your arguments against the so called "hypotheticals" , that
amazingly resemble the arguments of "mainstream scientists" (aka "The
astrologically ignorant") against Astrology as a whole...may I answer you
with the same words Sir Isaac Newton supposedly used for defending
astrology. 'The story goes that when his colleague Edmund Halley put down
Astrology, Newton stood up to him and said "Sir, I have studied it, you
I must admit that your arguments about the "Hubble telescope" remind me
lot of one of my colleagues in the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, who
used to say: "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist". Some scientist he is.
Most of the electromagnetic wave lengths, for instance, are not visible
to a human eye, and yet you wouldn't dare say that they don't exist. The
"Hubble Telescope" is merely a product of contemporary earthly science
technology, which are relatively "primitive", and based on contemporary
(and therefore EPHEMERAL) scientific theories, as formulated by
contemporary (and EPHEMERAL) earthlings (ahem..scientists). Nothing as
EPHEMERAL as contemporary science and technology can serve as a basis for
proving or disproving the existence or validity of anything. Earthy
Science and technology have a very long way to go, before earthly
scientists can claim they fully understand what the Universe is really
like, and whether or not any of the Stars or heavenly bodies that the
"Hubble Telescope" can detect is really what we choose to believe it is
(remember, these are all THEORIES, that none of us can either prove or
disprove). The only thing our telescopes can do is measure Radiation. Can
you really prove the source of this radiation is what you believe it is
(physical 'heavenly bodies' out there in space)? No, you cannot. This is
merely a belief that we learned to treat as "the ultimate truth",
that's what our teachers and books told us....
are other "points" that traditional (i.e. non - Uranian) astrologers use
that actually do not exist in the physical plane :
Moons Nodes, Part of Fortune & East Point,
Midpoints , AS, MC, House cusps, Vertex, Anti-Vertex,
Arabic Parts, Ansticion, Contransticion.