Jump to content

HPB-SB-1-176: Difference between revisions

HPB-SB-1-176 (view source)

Revision as of 04:07, 5 May 2023

21 bytes added ,  5 May 2023
m
no edit summary
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
Line 41: Line 41:
  | categories =  
  | categories =  
}}
}}
{{Style P-Author|by Buddha}}
<center>{{Style S-Small capitals|by Buddha}}</center>


{{Style S-Small capitals|A Little}} work has found its way into my hands, entitled “Your Future Foretold,” by Casael, and deserves a passing notice were it only for its freedom from bombast and protracted obscurity. “I, only I, am an astrologer; I only can give the true rendering of ''vox stellarum''," is the charlatanical language of nearly all who have written on this outlawed branch of human investigation. The little book would be a gem had its author not fallen into another mistake which astrological, and other authors of limited experience have so often committed, that of doggerel rhymes of the old ballad style. There is neither force nor ornament in it, and disfigures any book, however faultless otherwise, the egotism of the author to the contrary, notwithstanding.
{{Style S-Small capitals|A Little}} work has found its way into my hands, entitled “Your Future Foretold,” by Casael, and deserves a passing notice were it only for its freedom from bombast and protracted obscurity. “I, only I, am an astrologer; I only can give the true rendering of ''vox stellarum''," is the charlatanical language of nearly all who have written on this outlawed branch of human investigation. The little book would be a gem had its author not fallen into another mistake which astrological, and other authors of limited experience have so often committed, that of doggerel rhymes of the old ballad style. There is neither force nor ornament in it, and disfigures any book, however faultless otherwise, the egotism of the author to the contrary, notwithstanding.


Casael introduces his subject by defending it against the most common objections, which are for the greater part of a Scriptural character. Had the work been written in America, very little space would have been given to Scriptural objections, as the average American cares very little whether a theory squares with the Holy Writ or not. Is it true, and can it be demonstrated? is the American query, and the Scriptures are left to take care of themselves.
Casael introduces his subject by defending it against the most common objections, which are for the greater part of a Scriptural character. Had the work been written in America, very little space would have been given to Scriptural objections, as the average American cares very little whether a theory squares with the Holy Writ or not. Is it true, and can it be demonstrated? is the American query, and the Scriptures are left to take care of themselves.


Every one is aware that Astrology is of great antiquity, yet it is singular how little of ancient authority on the subject has been handed down to us, the only systematic treatise preserved for us being a para phase by Proclus of the Tetrabiblos by Claudius Ptolemy. It is spoken of by ancient writers, and astrological ideas are interwoven throughout ancient literature, but no other writer makes it a specialty. Cicero writes against it, but introduces objections which only prove his ignorance of the fundamental principles of Astrology, or dishonesty, as Voltaire has done in his Philosophical Dictionary. That so few men, comparatively, of ability and learning have devoted themselves to astrological study is not to be wondered at, obscured as it is with silly aphorisms and conceited theories; that so many have devoted their talents to its study, proves that beneath its surface silliness there lie principles of verity and utility.
Every one is aware that Astrology is of great antiquity, yet it is singular how little of ancient authority on the subject has been handed down to us, the only systematic treatise preserved for us being a para phase by Proclus of the Tetrabiblos by Claudius Ptolemy. It is spoken of by ancient writers, and astrological ideas are interwoven throughout ancient literature, but no other writer makes it a specialty. Cicero writes against it, but introduces objections which only prove his ignorance of the fundamental principles of Astrology, or dishonesty, as Voltaire has done in his Philosophical Dictionary. That so few men, comparatively, of ability and learning have devoted themselves to astrological study is not to be wondered at, obscured as it is with silly aphorisms and conceited theories; that so many have devoted their talents to its study, proves that beneath its surface silliness there lie principles of verity and utility.


The work of the modern author on Astrology should be to eliminate the obscurities and falsehoods which have gathered like barnacles on every work on the subject Thin, Casael has in part attempted, and his endeavor to modernize astrological terms is equally praiseworthy. The nodes of the moon and “the part of fortune,” an imaginary point in the heavens, bearing the same relation in distance and position to the eastern horizon that the Moon does to the Sun, are discarded by him. In this he is assuredly right, for what influence can nonentities have? But I may be permitted to ask Casael what influence " Houses and Signs” possess, for they are just as imaginary and at unreal as the nodes of the Moon and the Part of Fortune; also why the degrees of direction in a nativity are converted into time? How can space be converted into time; are they convertible? By what species of logic can a degree of celestial space be made to represent a solar year of time? I am not aware that any astrologer has ever given a rational explanation of these assumed principles in Astrology.
The work of the modern author on Astrology should be to eliminate the obscurities and falsehoods which have gathered like barnacles on every work on the subject Thin, Casael has in part attempted, and his endeavor to modernize astrological terms is equally praiseworthy. The nodes of the moon and “the part of fortune,” an imaginary point in the heavens, bearing the same relation in distance and position to the eastern horizon that the Moon does to the Sun, are discarded by him. In this he is assuredly right, for what influence can nonentities have? But I may be permitted to ask Casael what influence " Houses and Signs” possess, for they are just as imaginary and at unreal as the nodes of the Moon and the Part of Fortune; also why the degrees of direction in a nativity are converted into time? How can space be converted into time; are they convertible? By what species of logic can a degree of celestial space be made to represent a solar year of time? I am not aware that any astrologer has ever given a rational explanation of these assumed principles in Astrology.


I do not need to be reminded that certain principles may exist, though neither I nor any one be able to give a reason therefor; and they may exist though my reason be opposed to them. And I do not need to remind the defender of Astrology, that all that is of Astrology is mostly dependent upon the obscure dictum of medieval writers and the experimental observation of modem artists, giving to it an empirical char-
I do not need to be reminded that certain principles may exist, though neither I nor any one be able to give a reason therefor; and they may exist though my reason be opposed to them. And I do not need to remind the defender of Astrology, that all that is of Astrology is mostly dependent upon the obscure dictum of medieval writers and the experimental observation of modem artists, giving to it an empirical char- {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|1-177}}
 
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|1-177}}


{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/11612"