Apologies in advance for such a basic question but I have gotten mixed ideas about the nodes retrograde. I have heard that the Nodes are always retrograde, and, I have heard that they are not. I keep forgetting to ask this question, so before I forget again, I thought I would ask. If they are sometimes rx and sometimes not, then what is the best way to understand rx nodes according to EA?
Thanks
Dhyana
Hi Dhyana
Quote from: Dhyana on Aug 08, 2010, 08:13 PM
Apologies in advance for such a basic question but I have gotten mixed ideas about the nodes retrograde. I have heard that the Nodes are always retrograde, and, I have heard that they are not. I keep forgetting to ask this question, so before I forget again, I thought I would ask. If they are sometimes rx and sometimes not, then what is the best way to understand rx nodes according to EA?
The nodes are points in space, not physical bodies. Much of astrology uses mean nodes, which basically means the location is averaged and the mean motion is always retrograde. Jeffrey always taught to use true node, which is the actual location of the nodes at any given time. The actual motion of the nodes is retrograde 90% of the time. The reason EA uses true nodes is because that is what actually occurs in the sky. Mean nodes are an abstraction that does not really exist.
When you consider that the south node (of the moon) represents habitual emotional patterns, you can see that much of our self-image (moon) is based on the past, on what has come before. The natural function of retrograde is to review, renew, redo - it forces us to internalize and ultimately make conscious what tends to be unconscious. Symbolically this is the meaning of the nodes being retrograde 90% of the time. The consciousness of 90% of people needs this review renew redo to break free from the hold of the past.
Steve
Quote from: Steve on Aug 08, 2010, 09:14 PM
Hi Dhyana
Quote from: Dhyana on Aug 08, 2010, 08:13 PM
Apologies in advance for such a basic question but I have gotten mixed ideas about the nodes retrograde. I have heard that the Nodes are always retrograde, and, I have heard that they are not. I keep forgetting to ask this question, so before I forget again, I thought I would ask. If they are sometimes rx and sometimes not, then what is the best way to understand rx nodes according to EA?
The nodes are points in space, not physical bodies. Much of astrology uses mean nodes, which basically means the location is averaged and the mean motion is always retrograde. Jeffrey always taught to use true node, which is the actual location of the nodes at any given time. The actual motion of the nodes is retrograde 90% of the time. The reason EA uses true nodes is because that is what actually occurs in the sky. Mean nodes are an abstraction that does not really exist.
When you consider that the south node (of the moon) represents habitual emotional patterns, you can see that much of our self-image (moon) is based on the past, on what has come before. The natural function of retrograde is to review, renew, redo - it forces us to internalize and ultimately make conscious what tends to be unconscious. Symbolically this is the meaning of the nodes being retrograde 90% of the time. The consciousness of 90% of people needs this review renew redo to break free from the hold of the past.
Steve
Oooh! Okay, I get it. That makes sense now. I don't think I would have ever found that in a book, so thanks a lot!
With taking what you said, Steve, another question arises -- and that is then if we find a chart where the True Node is one of the 10% that is NOT Rx, then what would be the best way to understand that (seeing that 10% is rather rare!) ?
Thanks a million. I have always wanted to understand the story around the Rx nodes and what True and Mean Nodes meant.
:)Dhyana
One more Q - can one true node be Rx and the other NOT, or either they both are or both aren't?
Quoteif we find a chart where the True Node is one of the 10% that is NOT Rx, then what would be the best way to understand that (seeing that 10% is rather rare!) ?
Jeffrey taught that in his observation the 10% tend to know earlier in life why they are here and what they are supposed to be doing. (If I recall correctly, he was one of the 10%). I haven't observed that correlation as being consistent, and some other EA astrologers I've discussed that with haven't either. I think you can see that symbolically if the nodes are direct, that is, they are not in a review renew redo process, why the person might have a clearer idea earlier in life of why they are here. In other words, they completed the review renew redo process prior to this birth and are simply all about it in this life. You will see that developed in some people with direct nodes, for certain.
QuoteOne more Q - can one true node be Rx and the other NOT, or either they both are or both aren't?
I will explain a bit of what the nodes are and then let you answer this yourself. Remember that the north and south nodes of the moon mathematically are always exactly 180 degrees opposite each other (this is not true with the nodes of other planets). If one lunar node was direct and the other was retrograde, would they at that moment be exactly 180 degrees apart from each other?
Per wikipedia, "The lunar nodes are the orbital nodes of the Moon, that is, the points where the orbit of the Moon crosses the ecliptic (which is the apparent path of the Sun across the heavens against the background stars). The ascending node is where the moon crosses to the north of the ecliptic. The descending node is where it crosses to the south." It takes 18.6 years for the nodes to traverse the 360 degrees of the zodiac.
Here's a decent web page I found with diagrams of the nodes and where they are located in the sky. Its from a Vedic astrology site.
http://www.esotericteaching.org/initiate/bhakti-vaibhava/jyotish/the-vedic-calendar/410-lunar-nodes-and-eclipses
(In Vedic astrology the south node is called Ketu and the NN Rahu - you will see they use the same glyphs that Western astrology does, but they use Ketu and Rahu instead of SN and NN. The only reason I used a Vedic astrology site is because they had the best diagrams of the nodes I found in a short Google search.)
thnks again steve, for all ur support
This thread has brought up the question: since Nodes appear to naturally move in a retrograde motion, how is this indicated in a chart? When the Rx symbol appears next to the True Node (confusing) what does that mean? Thanks!
I don't have a question about this, would just like to make a comment about the nodes in general. For a while now I have been questioning the hard and fast interpretation of which node is north (growth) and which is south (past/stagnant). I have looked at charts which made no sense until I changed the rules, reinterpreting which one should be seen as growth oriented, and the chart actually started "to work". I don't know who came up with which was which, but the whole thing seems arbitrary to me. It's not like there's anything written in stone anywhere.
Here's a partial quote from a book by Steven Forrest, in which he explains the math of the nodal axis:
"...So half the time the Moon is above the Ecliptic, half the time it is below. (And here we shamelessly indulge in the European colonial fantasy that north is "above" and south is "below"!)."
I would take that one step further, adding that "below" came to be interpretated negatively, therefore stagnant and the past.
Hi Linda
Quote from: Linda on Aug 10, 2010, 01:00 AM
This thread has brought up the question: since Nodes appear to naturally move in a retrograde motion, how is this indicated in a chart? When the Rx symbol appears next to the True Node (confusing) what does that mean? Thanks!
When the Rx symbol appears next to the True Node it means the node is retrograde. When the node is direct the RX symbol won't appear next to it.
hi Bluesky
QuoteI don't have a question about this, would just like to make a comment about the nodes in general. For a while now I have been questioning the hard and fast interpretation of which node is north (growth) and which is south (past/stagnant). I have looked at charts which made no sense until I changed the rules, reinterpreting which one should be seen as growth oriented, and the chart actually started "to work". I don't know who came up with which was which, but the whole thing seems arbitrary to me. It's not like there's anything written in stone anywhere.
There is nothing written in stone anywhere about
anything in astrology. The entire art/science of astrology is observation and correlation. Astrologers have observed the movement of bodies in the sky for thousands of years and drawn correlations between their movements and aspects to other bodies, and the effects of those movements on human behavior.
The correlation between the south node and the past is one of the oldest and strongest of the astrological observations and correlations, going back many many centuries.
You are not the first person to suggest astrology has the nodal correlations backwards. My personal observations do not match yours - I consistently find the south node reflecting the past. One thing you may want to consider is whether what you are looking at in a person's life is apparent reality or actual reality. By that I mean, people can behave in ways that completely mask their actual reality, motivations and agendas, so the reality they believe they are living and will passionately tell you they are living is really a flip of their actual reality. And yet, because of the power of belief and conviction, they will convincingly assure you they are what they are not. They are extremely convincing to others because they have completely convinced themselves. In cases like this the apparent reality can be almost a flip of the actual reality. Thus the south node at times could look like what you think the north node should be, and vice versa. It requires much discernment on the part of the astrologer to be able to see through someone's created persona and self-delusions.
If after considering what I said you still feel the north node represents the past and that is working for you, well, go for it. As you said, its not written in stone. However the paradigm of Evolutionary Astrology as Jeffrey laid it out does not agree with your conclusion.
Steve
Hi Steve,
well, that is food for thought. It hadn't occurred to me about the perceptive realty v. actual reality. I will be contemplating that for sure. I will say that in many of these charts there are conjunctions to one or both of the nodes (but especially the south node) and/or the south node ruler is conjucted itself or otherwise extremely active in the chart.
so, I have said something that's been on my mind for a while about these nodes, and since it's a matter of observation, I have decided to be flexible in appyling emphasis regarding the nodes. if it helps the person at all I feel I need to view the nodal axis as fluid.
and thanks very much for your feedback, Steve.
Bluesky
Quotewell, that is food for thought. It hadn't occurred to me about the perceptive realty v. actual reality. I will be contemplating that for sure. I will say that in many of these charts there are conjunctions to one or both of the nodes (but especially the south node) and/or the south node ruler is conjucted itself or otherwise extremely active in the chart.
You brought up a good point. There are exceptions to the general nodal "rules" in EA, based on location and aspects the nodal rulers make. Things like the north and south node rulers conjunct, the ruler of the NN conjunct the SN and vice versa. These type of patterns mean effort has been applied in past lives. What it means is you will see signs of both the NN and SN in these cases as they have both been at least partially developed. Thus you might see signs of the NN when viewing how the SN actualizes, or vice versa. That can add to the confusion.
Based on what you added I would say you are observing something real. Perhaps the issue is that you are looking at the nodes as the full cause when there are other factors involved that alter the typical behavior of the nodes in certain positions. Without taking those into account it might seem like in this chart the SN points to the future and the NN to the past, when actually the whole signature is pointing out that the nodal lessons have already been partially learned prior to the present life.
Also, you really must look at the the location of Pluto and its polarity point, because the nodal behaviors play out IN RELATION TO the Soul's underlying intentions as indicated by Pluto and PPP by house and sign. A south node in the 3rd house in Sag is going to play out quite differently when Pluto is in the 1st house in Leo vs Pluto in the 12th house in Libra.
A good example is the EA principle that some Souls take on Leo in a given life because they have been excessively deflated in a series of past lives and need to pump the ego up a bit to balance the scales. Vs a "true" Leo persona. Such a person may display quite the opposite of Leonian behavior much of the time. Without understanding this principle one could think the Leo is from the past and the person is here to develop humility, when in some cases quite the opposite would be the truth.
Steve
yes, and I can think of one chart I have in particular where the north node ruler conjuncts the south node, and vice versa...seriously!
I really need to keep in the mind the bottom line, pluto and it's PP. Not to mention the evolutionary state, which is crucial.
thanks again for your feedback, you just can't get stuff like that in books (unless they're EA).
Steve: "A good example is the EA principle that some Souls take on Leo in a given life because they have been excessively deflated in a series of past lives and need to pump the ego up a bit to balance the scales. Vs a "true" Leo persona. Such a person may display quite the opposite of Leonian behavior much of the time. Without understanding this principle one could think the Leo is from the past and the person is here to develop humility, when in some cases quite the opposite would be the truth."
Wow. Just wanted to say that this is a REALLY thought-provoking example. Thanks for posting it.
Ellen
Hi Bluesky, here is a link where various nodal configurations involving the nodes and their rulers are discussed that may be of interest to you:
Quotehttps://forum.schoolofevolutionaryastrology.com/index.php/topic,159.0.html
Steve wrote:
Quotepeople can behave in ways that completely mask their actual reality, motivations and agendas, so the reality they believe they are living and will passionately tell you they are living is really a flip of their actual reality. And yet, because of the power of belief and conviction, they will convincingly assure you they are what they are not. They are extremely convincing to others because they have completely convinced themselves. In cases like this the apparent reality can be almost a flip of the actual reality. Thus the south node at times could look like what you think the north node should be, and vice versa. It requires much discernment on the part of the astrologer to be able to see through someone's created persona and self-delusions.
I wanted to add something that I noticed when it comes to astrological polarities (ie the nodes). That the shadow of one sign LOOKS A LOT LIKE a distorted version of it's polarity. For example Virgo can have the appearance of having it all together, being perfect and pure- not being bothered by anything. This seeming peacefulness looks a lot like Pisces doesn't it? Yet it can easily just be a compensation for feeling really chaotic inside.
Ari Moshe
thank you for the link Ari! your comment reminds me of something (just a little), about my own beginnings in studying astrology - I was reading all kinds of books, and this was before I came across the Pluto I book. I was reading Jeanne Avery's book called Rising Signs and still hadn't had my natal chart cast yet. As I was reading through the descriptions of the various rising signs, I settled on one in particular, thinking, "If there's anyone in here that sounds just like me, this has to be it, no doubt". Then I got my chart cast and guess what - it was the exact opposite sign that turned out to be my ascendant. Wierd, huh? and I remember in particular not even being able to finish the chapter on my actual rising sign, because I disliked it so much. It was definitely my least "favorite". and this was the one it turned out to be.
****
Dhyana, I apologize if my original post may have got things a little off track here, I didn't mean to highjack your thread.
Hi Ari (and Bluesky)
QuoteI wanted to add something that I noticed when it comes to astrological polarities (ie the nodes). That the shadow of one sign LOOKS A LOT LIKE a distorted version of it's polarity. For example Virgo can have the appearance of having it all together, being perfect and pure- not being bothered by anything. This seeming peacefulness looks a lot like Pisces doesn't it?
This is a good point Ari. Especially if that Virgo, say, happens to fall in the 12th house. And the same with other signs falling in their opposite house.
Bluesky, the EA question then becomes "why did the Soul create the chart that way?". It always comes down to either past conditions, or evolutionary intentions, or both. Our work as EA astrologers is to do the detective work and try to understand the reasons for the paradox.
Steve
Steve,
I guess in some cases it comes to facing the facade and breaking it down.
Quote from: bluesky on Aug 10, 2010, 03:40 PM
****
Dhyana, I apologize if my original post may have got things a little off track here, I didn't mean to highjack your thread.
Ha! Bluesky, I am enjoying the highjack very much LOL ... thankful for it! ;D youre funny
Quote from: Steve on Aug 10, 2010, 05:14 PM
Hi Ari (and Bluesky)
Quote
Bluesky, the EA question then becomes "why did the Soul create the chart that way?". It always comes down to either past conditions, or evolutionary intentions, or both. "
Steve
Steve, So are u also saying here that the way the soul creates the chart is not always to serve it's evolution? That it may create a condition to stay stuck in the past? I am not sure what your words imply or not?
Thanks for any clarification.
Dhyana
Quote from: Dhyana on Aug 11, 2010, 12:44 AM
Quote from: Steve on Aug 10, 2010, 05:14 PM
Hi Ari (and Bluesky)
Quote
Bluesky, the EA question then becomes "why did the Soul create the chart that way?". It always comes down to either past conditions, or evolutionary intentions, or both. "
Steve
Steve, So are u also saying here that the way the soul creates the chart is not always to serve it's evolution? That it may create a condition to stay stuck in the past? I am not sure what your words imply or not?
Thanks for any clarification.
Dhyana
No, not saying that at all. It is always to serve its evolution. The Soul may have been stuck, in the past. That would be reflected in the chart. The intent is always to break out of where it is stuck. That is the evolutionary intention. Of course people often wind up not actualizing the Soul's intentions.
ok, good! i often read too far into things... u know, that mercury in scorpio gets like that sometimes... :P
...glad i'm catching on~
thanks steve
Quote from: ari moshe on Aug 10, 2010, 03:33 PM
I wanted to add something that I noticed when it comes to astrological polarities (ie the nodes). That the shadow of one sign LOOKS A LOT LIKE a distorted version of it's polarity. For example Virgo can have the appearance of having it all together, being perfect and pure- not being bothered by anything. This seeming peacefulness looks a lot like Pisces doesn't it? Yet it can easily just be a compensation for feeling really chaotic inside.
Ari Moshe
Ari, I think you hit on something that Wolf taught in the school, and that is that every sign carries its polarity - or ELEMENTS of its polarity - within it. And what I've observed over the years is (I think) similar to what you said below. I.e., that what we may object to MOST in our lives will reveal itself THRU the polarity sign of whatever planet we consider in its natal position in our chart. (not sure that's clear. :)) An example I remember clearly was a former astro teacher who was an Aquarius, and she had an incredible dislike for Leos. She was the only one who couldn't see how she herself was manifesting the Leo archetype, because she was too busy telling us that Aquarius was the BEST sign! LOL