piercethevale
Well-known member
What I'm posting here is a quote from Dane's book, "An Astrological Mandala: The Cycle Of Transformations And Its 360 Symbolic Phases." Part Three, Chapter 1, at near the end of the chapter. That is the one chapter that the website Mindfire excludes from their posting of the entire book.
The quotations exceed the 100 word limit that this forum has imposed but I'm not using it in an analytical manner. I'm merely trying to set the record straight as to why there are differences between Marc Jones and Dane Rudhyar and why those differences exist, mostly all in Dane's own words. I have whittled it down some to keep it more concise. If the admin here at the forum finds this unacceptable, please let me know and I will rewrite it to the best of my ability, but I am a terrible writer. I don't wish to be banned from this forum after nearly 17 years of membership here. Thank you.
I also posted this earlier today on a facebook page dedicated to the astrology and philosophy of Dane Rudhyar.
...copied and pasted as follows...
What Dane Rudhyar wrote concerning the difference between himself and Marc Jones in interpreting the Sabian Symbols, and lest not forget that Dane had found that Marc had changed a few so radically that they didn't fit in with the others when one views the entire set as a process of transformation. From here on begins the quotation...
The complimentary characters of opposite Signs and degrees of the Zodiac which I spoke of early in this chapter- the second form of a binary relationships- has been stressed by Marc Jones in his book, "The Sabian Symbols In Astrology". Jones states that "the degrees which lie face to face across the circle will be found to compliment each other in a fashion that is mutually illuminating and this fact has been of the greatest assistance in working out the detailed symbolism." Personally I find it difficult to recognize the validity of a great many of the very abstract correlations worked out by this eminent pioneer in the reformation of astrology. This no doubt comes from the fact that he and I approach symbols and the problem of interpretation from very different points of departure and with different types of mind. As he himself wrote: "There are unlimited ways in which these Sabian symbols can be interpreted; and the practiced student or professional astrologer need not confine himself to any one mode of approach.
"My approach is not only holistic, but mostly in terms of the potentiality of concrete experience. The Zodiac, with its Signs and symbols, is a symbolic expression of a cyclic sequence of archetypal types of experiences. It is existentially lived at all times by human persons who have feelings, doubts, social problems, aspirations, and yearnings for transcendence. The symbols themselves deal with very concrete scenes, usually everyday experiences of Americans. I have attempted to extract from all the elements of these scenes or images their vital significance in terms of the transformation of seemingly haphazard events into significant and purposeful phases of a process. We live this process constantly, in small cycles or in larger ones. But it is a whole process. It has direction. Real time is one dimensional, and I see it as purposeful. A great occultist and a healer with a most compassionate heart, Dr. D.J. Bussel, once said that "Time is the working out of God's plan." Symbols are units of cyclic time. They flow in an experience of duration toward a conclusion, which is also the seed of a new beginning. It is the living that is significant, and the direction in which this living is moving. [Unquote]
Dane continued on to explain that by recognizing that it is a cycle of transformation then the beginning of the cycle produces a goal, i.e. "what one has been born for." Those are represented by Aries 1* and Pisces 30*, in the Zodiac but in a natal chart they are the Asc. and the Desc. which Dane also identifies as the "WHO" and "WHERE-TO". But there are also two more key points, he brought up, as the question arises, of "HOW" and "WHY" That is when it becomes recognized as a mandala. "the mandala of the incarnation of a particular individual revealing the archetypal character of the human potential having emerged from the womb at a particular moment and in a particular place, and for a particular purpose."
The quotations exceed the 100 word limit that this forum has imposed but I'm not using it in an analytical manner. I'm merely trying to set the record straight as to why there are differences between Marc Jones and Dane Rudhyar and why those differences exist, mostly all in Dane's own words. I have whittled it down some to keep it more concise. If the admin here at the forum finds this unacceptable, please let me know and I will rewrite it to the best of my ability, but I am a terrible writer. I don't wish to be banned from this forum after nearly 17 years of membership here. Thank you.
I also posted this earlier today on a facebook page dedicated to the astrology and philosophy of Dane Rudhyar.
...copied and pasted as follows...
What Dane Rudhyar wrote concerning the difference between himself and Marc Jones in interpreting the Sabian Symbols, and lest not forget that Dane had found that Marc had changed a few so radically that they didn't fit in with the others when one views the entire set as a process of transformation. From here on begins the quotation...
The complimentary characters of opposite Signs and degrees of the Zodiac which I spoke of early in this chapter- the second form of a binary relationships- has been stressed by Marc Jones in his book, "The Sabian Symbols In Astrology". Jones states that "the degrees which lie face to face across the circle will be found to compliment each other in a fashion that is mutually illuminating and this fact has been of the greatest assistance in working out the detailed symbolism." Personally I find it difficult to recognize the validity of a great many of the very abstract correlations worked out by this eminent pioneer in the reformation of astrology. This no doubt comes from the fact that he and I approach symbols and the problem of interpretation from very different points of departure and with different types of mind. As he himself wrote: "There are unlimited ways in which these Sabian symbols can be interpreted; and the practiced student or professional astrologer need not confine himself to any one mode of approach.
"My approach is not only holistic, but mostly in terms of the potentiality of concrete experience. The Zodiac, with its Signs and symbols, is a symbolic expression of a cyclic sequence of archetypal types of experiences. It is existentially lived at all times by human persons who have feelings, doubts, social problems, aspirations, and yearnings for transcendence. The symbols themselves deal with very concrete scenes, usually everyday experiences of Americans. I have attempted to extract from all the elements of these scenes or images their vital significance in terms of the transformation of seemingly haphazard events into significant and purposeful phases of a process. We live this process constantly, in small cycles or in larger ones. But it is a whole process. It has direction. Real time is one dimensional, and I see it as purposeful. A great occultist and a healer with a most compassionate heart, Dr. D.J. Bussel, once said that "Time is the working out of God's plan." Symbols are units of cyclic time. They flow in an experience of duration toward a conclusion, which is also the seed of a new beginning. It is the living that is significant, and the direction in which this living is moving. [Unquote]
Dane continued on to explain that by recognizing that it is a cycle of transformation then the beginning of the cycle produces a goal, i.e. "what one has been born for." Those are represented by Aries 1* and Pisces 30*, in the Zodiac but in a natal chart they are the Asc. and the Desc. which Dane also identifies as the "WHO" and "WHERE-TO". But there are also two more key points, he brought up, as the question arises, of "HOW" and "WHY" That is when it becomes recognized as a mandala. "the mandala of the incarnation of a particular individual revealing the archetypal character of the human potential having emerged from the womb at a particular moment and in a particular place, and for a particular purpose."
Last edited:
