Feb 20, 2012
Tom writes: JJ has said that Astrology can influence one up to 25-30% if it is their sun sign.
JJ Let me clarify this. Your sun sign is one astrological influence out of many. Even though it is one out of many it is the most potent influence, making up somewhere around 25-30% of the total astrological influences on the individual.
Tom: I have been studying famous people born under my sign of Pisces. I am a bit confused as Dee Snider (Heavy Metal rocker from Twisted Sister), Andrew Jackson, Wyatt Earp and George Washington and were all tough guys. The trouble is I am not one and more on the shy mellow type that likes to relax and not be bothered. The above tough guys are all born under my sun sign. I not the Wyatt Earp type who was a fearless gunslinger in the Wild Wild West. How come people born under the same sun sign may seem very different in personalities? Due note another famous Pisces Einstein had a personality very different than Wyatt Earp
JJ Astrological influences are just that – influences. An influence is not you. You react to influences.
All the billions of people on earth have, in one life or another, been born under a Pisces sun as well as all the other eleven signs. If a person has developed courage under one sign then he will have it in another. The same goes with other qualities such as intelligence, honesty, love etc.
The key to understanding astrology is that you are not created from its forces, but merely influenced by them.
Let us take three of the people you mentioned – Wyatt Earp, Washington and Einstein. Let us imagine these three in different situations which have different influences such as.
(1) Stranded on a south sea island with a dozen beautiful sex starved women.
(2) Attending a rock concert.
(3) Their neighbor’s dog barks for hours on end.
(4) They win a lottery.
(5) They haven’t eaten for three days.
No two people will react exactly the same to these influences. Even so, no two individuals react the same to the influences of the sun or even all the astrological influences if they were born at the same time .
The influence of Pisces pushes the seeker to sacrifice the unnecessary things in life so he can concentrate on the essentials and move forward in his progression. Since no two people are alike no two people will handler this energy exactly the same.
Even though no two people handle influences the same there are some common reactions to strong influences.
For instance, a neighbor’s barking dog is bound to disturb Wyatt Earp, Washington and Einstein. After it barked for so long they all three would most likely take some type of action. Maybe Earp would shoot the dog, Washington would go talk with the owner and Einstein may complain to authorities. The influence effects them all but they use their own power of decision in handling in their own way.
Even so, three people may have similar astrological forces influencing them but they react in different ways to them. They are not the forces around them but react to the forces.
We also need to take into consideration that there are many astrological forces besides Pisces influencing someone born under that sign. There are different energies within the sun sign itself. For instance, those born in the first ten degrees of Pisces are influenced strongly by Neptune and Jupiter. Those born in the second ten egress, or second Decan, are influenced by the moon and those in the third ten degrees by Pluto and Mars.
In addition to this you have the influences of the moon and planets at the time of birth as well as the twelve houses determined by the time of day you were born.
Now even though an outside force influences you, you still have free will to ignore it or handle it gracefully. You can wear earplugs and ignore the dog or do something about it. The choice is yours. You and the barking dog are not one and the same.
Feb 21, 2012
A question to JJ on Astrology
RJ: how can we determine our sun sign, moon sign, rising sign? I am new to astrology and i need help. I was born on Dec. 17, 1959 at 11.00 A.M..
You can have a basic chart run free several places on the web. Here is one.
Feb 21, 2012
City Under the Sea
The next step after building cities on the sea will be building them under the sea. This will be more expensive and require higher technology but the inhabitants would be safer from hurricane damage.
Feb 26, 2012
The Key of Judgment
Ruth: In hindsight, I bet she (Ann Coulter) can be quite emotional when she wants to be, when no one is around. I’m sure she has her moments like every other woman on earth does.
JJ I was talking about her emotional control in public when she is attacked, which she often is. She handles most personal attacks with logic rather than strong emotional response.
I believe she has a highly charged emotional self and is very passionate, but able to control how she presents herself.
I see that men treat her different in an argument than they do other men. When she has an argument with a man on TV she is interrupted twice as much as the same man will interrupt a man with whom he disagrees. They also talk at the same time she is talking much more than they do with other men. Bill O’Reilly is a good example of this. He seems to interrupt her much more than he does a comparable man.
Yet, I’ve never seen her complain about being disadvantaged for being a woman. Instead, I have watched her evolve and deal with this problem by putting men in their place more when they do this.
Instead of saying: “You’re treating me differently because I am a woman,” she will firmly say, “It’s my turn to talk, thank you,” or something that tends to make the guy realize what he is doing.
Ruth: I thought that in practicing harmlessness, then one should not attack others personally, whether they deserve it or not?
JJ I wasn’t taking about personal attacks but attacks on what one considers to be illusionary thinking or bad ideas. All attacks must be measure and used with the second key of judgment. Many attack on a knee jerk basis whenever the opportunity arises. This is not the path of harmlessness. An attack must be decided upon using the Second Key of Judgment. There is a time and place for all things and good judgment tells us that attacks on ideas must be reasonable and effective and personal attacks should be few, but enlightening when they come.
Ruth: It seems that it is okay to attack some people when they deserve it. There must be some sort of fine line between attacking others and practicing harmlessness that I just can’t seem to grasp?
JJ The right idea is to always use the Second Key of Judgment.
If one thinks he can follow the path of harmlessness through the implementation of black and white rules the he is badly mistaken.
For instance, many pacifists think they are taking the harmless route by siding with the avoidance of conflict no matter what. Pacifism was very popular just before World War II and the pacifists cheered Chamberlain when he gave away Czechoslovakia in a deal with Hitler and proclaimed he had established “Peace in our time.”
Parades were held for the guy and he was a hero to pacifists until Hitler started WWII by invading Poland. On hindsight he is seen by history as a great buffoon, an embarrassment to humankind.
What was the more harmless route? To use a little force to put Hitler in his place and save millions of lives or to go for superficial harmlessness and go along with Hitler.
One can see here how crucial is the Key of Judgment for one cannot attack every tyrant who poses a risk, but there are times when judgment decrees that such should be done. Hitler had already laid out his plans for conquest and the elimination of the Jews. Judgment should have decreed that it was not the path of harmlessness to allow him to become the most powerful nation on earth – or to just give him an entire nation to feed his source of power.
Sometimes a bully must be firmly put in his place so he will not bully again – so real harmlessness can prevail. BUT we can’t use this as an excuse to attack whenever the emotional self feels like it. Good judgment, always, must prevail in the end.
Feb 28, 2012
I’m sending off another letter to my local paper. Unfortunately, I am limited to 200 words or less so I had to be concise.
Here it is:
The Statesman on Feb 26 published an article by two environmental activists declaring the usual mantra: “The scientific community has reached a consensus on climate change.”
This statement is followed with a plan to socially indoctrinate America so this “truth” will never be questioned again.
Anyone who has studied basic science knows that there is no consensus on many parts of the argument. Even so let us see where real consensus does lie:
(1) There is climate change. 99.99% of scientists and the public believe the climate has been changing since the beginning of the earth. Climate change deniers virtually do not exist – like the bogyman.
(2) Global warming has leveled off since 1998 with 2011 being cooler than 1998.
(3) The first great surge of human produced CO2 from 1940 to 1976 mysteriously resulted in global cooling rather than warming.
(4) Global warming is less destructive than global cooling.
(5) Since CO2 is a plant fertilizer there are benefits to CO2 emissions such as a greener more productive earth.
(6) Nuclear power is low risk and has reduced CO2 emissions more than all green sources combined yet most environmentalists refuse to go with this consensus to reduce emissions.
Feb 28, 2012
Tomb Exploration Reveals First Archaeological Evidence of Christianity from the Time of Jesus
(You do not have to log in to add comments)