Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Steiner / Zodiac

Expand Messages
  • Pierre Gringoire
    Hello Rick, In December I wrote to you about your comments regarding Steiner s definition of the Zodiac. I want to raise this subject on the Steiner list,
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Rick,
       
      In December I wrote to you about your comments regarding Steiner's definition of the Zodiac.  I want to raise this subject on the 'Steiner' list, and because you are no longer a member (and would be unable to respond to any of my postings) I wanted to give you the opportunity to comment before doing so.
       
      Your essay "Rudolf Steiner's Identification of the Zodiac" provides the most complete expression of your views on the subject.  You provide quotes from a number of Steiner's lectures and end with the following summary:
       
      "This concludes my survey of Dr. Steiner's evidence. It is clear that he does not relate the zodiac signs to any connect-the-dot patterns of stars. The zodiac signs represent relatively equal periods governed by the forces of twelve different choruses of spiritual beings behind the stars."
       
      One of the quotes you provide is from "The Karma of Untruthfulness" (your reference is Vol I, pg. 178 but this is found in Vol II pg. 188 of my copy):

      "On 28 Jan., he explained: “You know that the position of the sun on the ecliptic at the spring equinox moves forward in the Zodiac. You know that this point has been designated, ever since mankind began to think, according to its position in the Zodiac. So from about the eighth century before the Mystery of Golgotha until about the fifteenth century after the Mystery of Golgotha, the sun of the spring equinox rose in the sign of the Ram, though not always at exactly the same spot. During this time the sun traversed the sign of the Ram. Since then, the sun of the spring equinox has been rising in the sign of the Fishes.” (The Karma of Untruthfulness, Vol. I, pg. 178)"

      Having re-read this lecture recently, I was quite startled to discover the remainder of the paragraph, from which this was taken, was omitted.  The second part of the paragraph is as follows (the italics are mine):

      "Note, please, that astronomy takes no account of the constellations, so you will find that calendars still say that the sun rises in the constellation of the Ram at the beginning of spring, which is in fact not the case.  Astronomy has stuck to the earlier cycle.  It simply divides the Zodiac into twelve equal parts, each of which is named after on of the signs.  You know from our calendar what the situation is."

      This appears to flatly contradict the assertion that Steiner advocated an equally divided Zodiac or that the unequal Star Calendar was somehow a distortion of what he was teaching.

      Perhaps you would like to respond.

    • Pierre Gringoire
      List members, My previous message was intended for Rick Bobbette and not this list. Sending it here may have caused some confusion for others (and not a
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 14, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        List members,
         
        My previous message was intended for Rick Bobbette and not this list.  Sending it here may have caused some confusion for others (and not a little embarrasment for me).  Apologies to all concerned.
      • s
        ... Lol...... :o)) Don t you love it when that happens ;-p
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 14, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jan 14, 2004, at 3:17 PM, Pierre Gringoire wrote:

          > List members,
          >  
          > My previous message was intended for Rick Bobbette and not this list. 
          > Sending it here may have caused some confusion for others (and not a
          > little embarrasment for me).  Apologies to all concerned.
          >
          >


          Lol...... :o))

          Don't you love it when that happens ;-p
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.