GEODETIC EQUIVALENTS

[Rad]

Hi taf,

First, please see my answer to Linda concerning my misreading of one of your last questions. Sorry for my mistake. Second, there is no further steps in these geodetic equivalents.

God Bless, Rad

[Rad]

Hi taf,

One thing that JWG postulated and taught about these various cosmograms is that whatever planets are involved in the cosmograms, each one, correlated to the core archetypes in the consciousness of the Soul that were the bottom lines in each of the lives symbolized by those cosmograms. So in the original example that I posted it would mean those four planets were the active archetypes in the life of that cosmogram.

God Bless, Rad

[Linda]

Rad,

I very much appreciate the time you have taken to teach me (us) about geodetic equivalents, and also answering many questions.  This thread has been a great learning experience.  

One thing that JWG postulated and taught about these various cosmograms is that whatever planets are involved in the cosmograms, each one, correlated to the core archetypes in the consciousness of the Soul that were the bottom lines in each of the lives symbolized by those cosmograms. So in the original example that I posted it would mean those four planets were the active archetypes in the life of that cosmogram.

This teaching really brings it all together!

Thank you.

[Taf]

One thing that JWG postulated and taught about these various cosmograms is that whatever planets are involved in the cosmograms, each one, correlated to the core archetypes in the consciousness of the Soul that were the bottom lines in each of the lives symbolized by those cosmograms. So in the original example that I posted it would mean those four planets were the active archetypes in the life of that cosmogram.

Hi Rad,

What do you mean by "life of that cosmogram"?  Does a single cosmogram, and the planets therein, have a specific function of wholeness?  What I mean is: does the lead planet have any sort of baseline meaning, other than Age/Sub-Age, whereby the other planets in that cosmogram are then related to the lead planet?  I've been wondering about this for a while but think I missed the explanation somehow.

Since the basis for these cosmograms is the lead planet being located at the midpoint to other planets which come later in time...In our example, Mars is the lead planet in the cosmogram.  It is at the midpoint of Jupiter & Venus.  Would Jupiter & Venus, because of this and because they come AFTER Mars in terms of generic time (Mars = 2,260-2,170BC / Venus = 2,080-1,990BC / Jupiter = 1,720-1,630BC) be interpreted in relation to Mars?  As though something from the archetype and life experiences concentrated in that Mars has been carried over into the Jupiter & Venus lives...something that must also correlate to the evolutionary signature of the current life, and yet specific to Mars?  Or does all interpretation still arise from the natal chart?  



I'm also still confused about the purpose of the crosses within each Geodetic Zone.  And why we correlated the initial planets in our natal chart, by house specifically, to these zones when later the lead planets of a cosmogram are located specifically to the zone of their sign?  What does it mean in terms of Geodetic equivalents, say, if my Mars in Aries is located in the 3rd House in my natal chart?  At first we correlated it to all the different zones (Gemini for 3rd House, Aries for sign, and then Libra, Cancer, Capricorn because of the cross within Aries), but then after the cosmograms have been made that Mars gets locked, so to speak, in its own Aries zone.  And then if Mars is linked in another planet's cosmogram it is also located in that planet's zone of sign.

I know I must be missing something right in front of me, but could you explain again why we did all the different zone correlations in the beginning before the cosmograms were made?

Much appreciated,
taf

[jasonholley]

Hi Rad,

I too appreciate your generosity in sharing this information. 

About my earlier question which seemed to create confusion, my apologies.  Although you had answered "incorrectly" I did get it clearly I think thanks to others' questions.

If I have understood correctly, lifetimes described by a planet, no matter whose cosmogram they are contained within, always occur in either their geodetic sign zone, cross sign zones, or house zone.  Is this correct?

To test this understanding, I would like to try an example.  This is the Venus cosmogram of a chart I am working on:

                 Venus in Leo (5th)
                           |
Moon in Libra (6th) -- Uranus in Sagittarius (7th)

Both the Moon and Uranus have their own cosmograms and therefore "count" if I have understood correctly.  So, this cosmogram shows the following connected lifetimes which the current Venus reflects and draws from in the accomplishment of its evolutionary intentions:

Based on Venus, a lifetime or lifetimes occurred in:
10,900-10,810 (Leo Age, Leo Period) in any of the Fixed zones.

Based on the Moon, a lifetime or lifetimes occurred in:
10,720-10,630 (Leo Age, Libra Period) in the Cardinal zones and/or the Virgo zone (6th house).

Based on the Uranus, a lifetime or lifetimes occurred in:
10,540-10,450 (Leo Age, Sagittarius Period) in the Mutable zones and/or the Libra zone (7th house).

Is this correct?

God bless,
Jason

[jasonholley]

Hi Rad,

I have two more questions I have encountered in another chart I am working on.

1.  When one side of a cosmogram branch is a planet which does not have a cosmogram of its own, what happens to the planet on the other side of the branch?  

For example:

               Uranus
                   |
        SN ---------- Saturn

For the purpose of this example, let us say that the Saturn does not have a cosmogram of its own, but the South Node does.  Then for this Uranus cosmogram, I understand that the Saturn will not be considered a lifetime or lifetimes referent either, but what about the South Node on the other side?  Is it still used even though its branchmate is not?

2.  What happens when none of the planets in a planet's cosmogram have cosmograms of their own?  So to use another example:
                       Pluto
                           |
     Moon ------------------ Saturn

Let's say that the Moon and Saturn are the only branches on this Pluto cosmogram.  However, both Moon and Saturn do not have cosmograms of their own.  I understand that this means that in this cosmogram neither the Moon nor Saturn refer to specific periods or zones in which lifetimes occurred.  But does Pluto still represent a time period and geographic zones in which specific incarnations occurred, or is it now treated as a planet without a cosmogram since its cosmogram branches don't "count"?   And if it is now treated as a planet without a cosmogram, would it then also not be "counted" on the cosmograms of other planets?

Thanks again, God bless,
Jason

[Rad]

Hi Jason,

What do you mean by "life of that cosmogram"?  Does a single cosmogram, and the planets therein, have a specific function of wholeness?  What I mean is: does the lead planet have any sort of baseline meaning, other than Age/Sub-Age, whereby the other planets in that cosmogram are then related to the lead planet?  I've been wondering about this for a while but think I missed the explanation somehow.

Since the basis for these cosmograms is the lead planet being located at the midpoint to other planets which come later in time...In our example, Mars is the lead planet in the cosmogram.  It is at the midpoint of Jupiter & Venus.  Would Jupiter & Venus, because of this and because they come AFTER Mars in terms of generic time (Mars = 2,260-2,170BC / Venus = 2,080-1,990BC / Jupiter = 1,720-1,630BC) be interpreted in relation to Mars?  As though something from the archetype and life experiences concentrated in that Mars has been carried over into the Jupiter & Venus lives...something that must also correlate to the evolutionary signature of the current life, and yet specific to Mars?  Or does all interpretation still arise from the natal chart? 

*************************************************

Excellent question and one I should have addressed yesterday. Sorry for being remiss. In our example cosmogram Mars in Aries in the lead planet because it is at the top of the cosmogram. For the life that that Mars connects too it should be treated as the 'lead' planet for that life, the core archetype or bottom line upon which the other planets in that cosmogram contribute as core archetypes for that life. With Saturn at the opposite point of Mars this should be seen as correlative to an opposition to that Mars in that life, and the Jupiter and Venus as squares to both Mars and Saturn. In total all four of those planets thus correlate to the core archetypes of that life where Mars is the lead: like an ascendant. So this would be the life symbolized as between 2,260 to 2,170.

The next 90 year segment within that cosmogram connects to Venus: 2,080 to 1,990. Now we will make Venus the lead planet for that life, as if it is on top. This then puts Jupiter at the bottom, and Mars and Saturn to each side.

The next 90 year segment within that cosmogram connects to Jupiter: 1,720 to 1,630. Now we will make Jupiter the lead planet for that life, as if it is on top. This then puts Venus at the bottom, and Mars and Saturn to either side.

The next 90 year segment within that cosmogram connects to Saturn: 1,450 to 1,360. Now we will make Saturn the lead planet for that life, as if it is on top. This then puts Mars at the bottom, and the Jupiter and Venus to either side.

You can see in this way of understanding the cosmograms that the archetypes involved came full circle through the progression of the lives as symbolized in our Mars cosmogram linked with the Aries geodetic astrological zone, and the natural cross of the other signs within it.

This is the exact procedure to follow for all of the cosmograms.

********************************************

I'm also still confused about the purpose of the crosses within each Geodetic Zone.  And why we correlated the initial planets in our natal chart, by house specifically, to these zones when later the lead planets of a cosmogram are located specifically to the zone of their sign?  What does it mean in terms of Geodetic equivalents, say, if my Mars in Aries is located in the 3rd House in my natal chart?  At first we correlated it to all the different zones (Gemini for 3rd House, Aries for sign, and then Libra, Cancer, Capricorn because of the cross within Aries), but then after the cosmograms have been made that Mars gets locked, so to speak, in its own Aries zone.  And then if Mars is linked in another planet's cosmogram it is also located in that planet's zone of sign.

*************************************************

It means exactly what you have answered yourself here in terms of the correct geodetic procedures to use.

***********************************************

I know I must be missing something right in front of me, but could you explain again why we did all the different zone correlations in the beginning before the cosmograms were made?

************************************************************

It's a combination of methods relative to geodetic equivalents who intention is to demonstrate the prior lifetimes upon which the Soul, in total, is drawing upon relative to it's evolutionary intentions. </

******************************

God Bless, Rad


>

[Rad]

Hi Jason,

I too appreciate your generosity in sharing this information. 

About my earlier question which seemed to create confusion, my apologies.  Although you had answered "incorrectly" I did get it clearly I think thanks to others' questions.

If I have understood correctly, lifetimes described by a planet, no matter whose cosmogram they are contained within, always occur in either their geodetic sign zone, cross sign zones, or house zone.  Is this correct?

*******************************

Yes............

********************************

To test this understanding, I would like to try an example.  This is the Venus cosmogram of a chart I am working on:

                 Venus in Leo (5th)
                           |
Moon in Libra (6th) -- Uranus in Sagittarius (7th)

Both the Moon and Uranus have their own cosmograms and therefore "count" if I have understood correctly.  So, this cosmogram shows the following connected lifetimes which the current Venus reflects and draws from in the accomplishment of its evolutionary intentions:

Based on Venus, a lifetime or lifetimes occurred in:
10,900-10,810 (Leo Age, Leo Period) in any of the Fixed zones.

Based on the Moon, a lifetime or lifetimes occurred in:
10,720-10,630 (Leo Age, Libra Period) in the Cardinal zones and/or the Virgo zone (6th house).

Based on the Uranus, a lifetime or lifetimes occurred in:
10,540-10,450 (Leo Age, Sagittarius Period) in the Mutable zones and/or the Libra zone (7th house).

Is this correct?

*************************************

Yes .................

*****************************************

God Bless, Rad

[Rad]

Hi Jason,

I have two more questions I have encountered in another chart I am working on.

1.  When one side of a cosmogram branch is a planet which does not have a cosmogram of its own, what happens to the planet on the other side of the branch?  

For example:

               Uranus
                   |
        SN ---------- Saturn

For the purpose of this example, let us say that the Saturn does not have a cosmogram of its own, but the South Node does.  Then for this Uranus cosmogram, I understand that the Saturn will not be considered a lifetime or lifetimes referent either, but what about the South Node on the other side?  Is it still used even though its branchmate is not?

***********************************************

It does not matter if the Saturn, in you example, has it's own cosmogram or not relative to the Uranus cosmogram you have presented. The fact that Uranus is at the top and that it does connect to both the S.Node and Saturn makes that Saturn 'count'. So it will then have it's own 90 year segment of time relative to the Uranus cosmogram above.

*******************************************************

2.  What happens when none of the planets in a planet's cosmogram have cosmograms of their own?  So to use another example:
                       Pluto
                           |
     Moon ------------------ Saturn

Let's say that the Moon and Saturn are the only branches on this Pluto cosmogram.  However, both Moon and Saturn do not have cosmograms of their own.  I understand that this means that in this cosmogram neither the Moon nor Saturn refer to specific periods or zones in which lifetimes occurred.  But does Pluto still represent a time period and geographic zones in which specific incarnations occurred, or is it now treated as a planet without a cosmogram since its cosmogram branches don't "count"?   And if it is now treated as a planet without a cosmogram, would it then also not be "counted" on the cosmograms of other planets?

***********************************************

Yes. ANY PLANET THAT HAS OTHER PLANETS AS PART OF IT'S COSMOGRAM 'COUNTS'. It does not matter if the planets within that cosmogram of the lead planet have their own cosmograms or not. Relative to that lead planet, in your example Pluto, the fact that it does connect to the Moon and Saturn within it makes all three 90 year time segments count. If the Moon and Saturn do not have their own cosmograms DOES NOT MATTER.

******************************************************

God Bless, Rad

[Bradley J]

Rad,

Thank You for sharing all of this here. 
I am very excited to study and learn this in time. If I need help understanding, I know I can ask; thank you. 
I have been working on more reflections of the planetary nodes of Venus which I am posting on that thread.
I have been missing you all and the message board.  I have continued in focus and study of EA when other life responsibilities are not required being met.

Much Love,
Bradley

[ari moshe]

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone has advice or technique for creating cosmograms in an easy way. There must be a more accurate way of calculating these other than using the lines of a circular piece of paper to measure.

Also, Linda, Jason and Taf thank you for your great questions! I finally caught up on this thread tonight and your thorough questions really helped me "get it". With Love,
am

[Upasika]

Hi Ari,

Not sure if this is what you are referring to, but in Solar Fire if you have it, when in the View Chart screen you can see a chart as a dial. On the right hand side of the screen, directly above the Redraw button there is a dropdown box. Clicking on the little downwards pointing arrow at the right side of this box drops down a list of display options, either Wheel or Dial. I was able to create cosmograms for each planet using that screen and then they could be printed out if you wished. Maybe this helps?

Upasika

[Upasika]

Hi Rad,

I have fallen behind on this thread a bit. I've followed along and read all the posts and think I understand everything but haven't applied it to my chart yet. When I get time to do this (in a while) hopefully it's ok if I have any questions I can ask you then.

Upasika

[Taf]

Rad,

Thanks so much for your answers.  I am pondering some more aspects of the whole method and will eventually articulate them into more questions, but it may take a little bit of time.

One quick question (although not thoroughly thought out): If there are other branches on a cosmogram do they also refer to the symbolism of a square aspect?  

        Mars

Jupiter         Venus

Moon           Mercury

        Saturn

In the above modification to the original example, would both the Jupiter/Venus & the Moon/Mercury be considered "squares" to Mars/Saturn?  And what would happen then when we arrive in our investigations to the Venus lifetime?  How does it look with Venus at the lead?  Would Mercury then be a conjunction even if it is in a different sign from Venus, or still a square?

And are we qualifying the square-like aspects with First Quarter/Last Quarter?  Or do they simply mean the tension of the archetypes (say Mars/Jupiter & Mars/Saturn) within the Mars lifetime (2,260 - 2,170BC), as they are drawn upon by the current Soul, are symbolic of a generic square or opposition aspect, respectively?  Or could it be that Mars would be involved in a First Quarter Square with the next planet coming in time: Mars/Venus first quarter square?  Thus, in our example, Mars/Jupiter would be a Last Quarter square?


Furthermore, are the cosmogram aspects considered squares or oppositions due to any specific reason?  I know I still have much to learn regarding midpoints, etc, and I will also continue to contemplate the whole of Geodetic Equivalents, cosmograms, etc, as applied to EA, but just wanted to ask if JWG left explanations regarding these somewhat mundane considerations.

Kindly,

taf

[Rad]

Hi Jason,

Thanks so much for your answers.  I am pondering some more aspects of the whole method and will eventually articulate them into more questions, but it may take a little bit of time.

One quick question (although not thoroughly thought out): If there are other branches on a cosmogram do they also refer to the symbolism of a square aspect?  

****************************************

We can use the symbolism of a square, or semi-square, etc but the underlying dynamic is one of developmental/ evolutionary stress.

**************************************************

        Mars

Jupiter         Venus

Moon           Mercury

        Saturn

In the above modification to the original example, would both the Jupiter/Venus & the Moon/Mercury be considered "squares" to Mars/Saturn?

****************************************

Again, yes we can consider them this way but, again, the real underlying dynamic is one of developmental/ evolutionary stress within the planetary archetypes involved.

*********************************************

 And what would happen then when we arrive in our investigations to the Venus lifetime?  How does it look with Venus at the lead?  Would Mercury then be a conjunction even if it is in a different sign from Venus, or still a square?

****************************************************

It would be treated as a conjunction.

*****************************************************

And are we qualifying the square-like aspects with First Quarter/Last Quarter?  Or do they simply mean the tension of the archetypes (say Mars/Jupiter & Mars/Saturn) within the Mars lifetime (2,260 - 2,170BC), as they are drawn upon by the current Soul, are symbolic of a generic square or opposition aspect, respectively?  Or could it be that Mars would be involved in a First Quarter Square with the next planet coming in time: Mars/Venus first quarter square?  Thus, in our example, Mars/Jupiter would be a Last Quarter square?

********************************************

In these cosmograms there no distinctions for first quarter, last quarter squares, nor are there distinctions for new phase or balsamic conjunctions. Thus, they are treated, as you put it, generically. The core dynamic here is one of tension or stress relative to the archetypes involved where that stress correlates to intense evolutionary growth because of the stress itself.

******************************************

Furthermore, are the cosmogram aspects considered squares or oppositions due to any specific reason?  I know I still have much to learn regarding midpoints, etc, and I will also continue to contemplate the whole of Geodetic Equivalents, cosmograms, etc, as applied to EA, but just wanted to ask if JWG left explanations regarding these somewhat mundane considerations.

***********************************************

From what I understand of Eberteins work is that any planets involved in the cosmograms correlate to developmental stress. Thus, the rationale for the symbolism of squares, oppositions, and conjunctions. JWG focused more on the interaction of the planetary archetypes themselves within the cosmograms as key markers in the Soul's evolutionary development that apply to the current life EA purposes of the Soul. When those archetypes are then linked to specific times and places, geographic and cultural context, this then can provide contextual information as to how and why those archetypes were actualized in the ways that they were and how this, in turn, correlates to the inner dynamics within the Soul that help us understand how and why the Soul has become what it is now, the current life.

***********************************************************

God Bless, Rad