Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00236)

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:38:00 EST, you wrote:

>
>In a message dated 1/21/99 3:55:57 AM, Bee quoted:
>
><<" All the creatures that are being born into the third dimensional
>world every moment throughout all eternity ended their previous
>incarnation under the same constellation as the one which existed at
>the moment of their birth in this incarnation.   >>
>
>Dear Bee,
>
>I question the validity of that astrological position by asking, is it
>reasonable that something so outward and physical as what position the
stars
>APPEAR to be in (from earth), should completely dictate when and how we
are
>reborn?

>
>I am just a humble egg, but I suspect our reincarnations are MUCH more
>complicated, though no doubt correspondences with the heavens play some
part.
>But we know that our Karma brings us together with our loved ones (and,
alas,
>enemies) time and time again, and if the stars had to be "EXACTLY right" for
>all of them too, it would be a mathematical nightmare.  So I think
>constellations are only secondary -- our karma, and the conditions a
>civilization provides for working out our karma, is probably one of the
>primary considerations.

I wondered about that too. If this information is not so then it makes
me wonder how seriously to take the book. I know others have read and
enjoyed it so maybe just take it as a good read.
Theosophy seems to point in quite a different direction but I am not
so familiar with astrology that I could have any real opinion.
>Finally, if one's constellations are ALWAYS different from birth to
death,
>what would happen if you went through people's birth and death dates in
>history?  There are lots of people who die on the exact same day of the
year
>in which they were born, and lots of babies that die less than a month
after
>birth --so that seems to disprove Haich's assertion also.  Had I the
time, I
>would look up a few examples, but I think the logic is clear enough.
Many thanks for your comments.
Bee
>
>Rich
>
>