Steve Irwin and TL66
an astro-psychological analysis by Juan Antonio Revilla
http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts/bio/steveirwin.html


Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:44:19 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Steve Irwin

I am used to see him in Animal Planet, mostly rescuing crocodiles and pissing off wild snakes. The Wikipedia says he was born 22 Feb 1962:

Sun = 3,23 Piscis (approx., 12h UT)
TL66 = 3,30 Piscis

tr. TD10 = 3,30 Geminis
tr. Icarus = 3,42 Sagittarius

"fatally pierced in the chest by a stingray barb"

I perceive/feel that Icarus is the stingray here. Made me remember what I wrote once on the wall built by the Israelis in Palestine: "Icarus is the horns, and the symbolical horn-like shape that I perceive in some of the photos of the Wall..."

http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts/mundane/wall.html

I used to always enjoy his shows until I began to feel annoyed by his constant disturbing wild animals only for the sake of making a show in front of the camera... I felt this wasn't love for wild animals but love for himself.

*Probably*, TL66 here means

1-) his identification with dangerous, and endangered, species
2-) how much he was his own personage (or how his persona swallowed him)

more ideas?

Juan

____________________________________________

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 07:35:05 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Steve Irwin, 2

A lot of people are talking about Saturn/Neptune over his Mars and nodal axis, but in my opinion, this does not account for the accident itself, only for the period he was living, Saturn and Neptune being slow-moving and the orbs being outside the 1-degree limit. If it were transiting Mars or Sun it would be different, but this is not the case. I personally discard Saturn and Neptune, not because the symbolism does not fit, but for technical reasons: they are out of orb to account for the moment of the accident.

applying the usual methodology:

1-) there is no data on the time of birth so the only personal points that can be used are the (approximate) Sun and the lunar node (plus the Black Moon --maybe, the last 2 only in case the Sun does not produce significant results)
2-) only transiting conjunctions, oppositions or squares, with a maximum orb of 1 degree, with allowance for precession between the time of birth and the time of the accident.
3-) everything else is discarded.

the radix Sun is somewhere between about 2,31 Piscis (1 a.m. birth) and 3,26 Piscis (11 p.m. birth)

Icarus is a very fast asteroid, so its transiting square with the radix Sun (his body, his heart)  can be technically associated with the event itself, specially here aligned with transiting TD10 (death) and natal TL66. Icarus-TD10 could be a good description of stingray, while TL66 provides the majestic but dangerous, other-worldly environment below the waters of the sea.

Martha's Lang-Wescott's keywords for Icarus apply: "Escapes that are careless of consequences; desire to  “get outta' here;” the fast break impulse; attraction to speed, danger or risk; desire to get away..."

2 other mythological asteroids are significantly placed (positions are precession-corrected, mythology from the Wikipedia)

Cybele = 3,02 Virgo (goddess of caverns and mountains, walls and fortresses, nature, wild animals... 'Mistress of the Animals').
Atropos = 3,34 Virgo  (the third of the Moirae, known as the 'inflexible' or 'inevitable'.

It was Atropos who chose the mechanism of death and ended the life of each mortal by cutting their thread with her 'abhorred shears'. Her Roman equivalent was Morta."

Juan

____________________________________________

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:22:53 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Steve Irwin and TL66

My interest here is to try to reach a better understanding of TL66 in his case. I quote the relevant part from the 1st post:

He was a tv personality, and a lot of people liked and admired him. After his death, any negative commentary about him was strongly attacked and disqualified, which reflects the strength of his public "persona". For his fans he was "higher than life" and criticizing him and what he allegedly represents was unforgiving. Since there are so many tributes written for who he was and what he did, the positive side of what he "incarnated", what completely dominated and at times overshadowed his Sun, what at other time we could see the Sun triumphing over, easily gets distorted or overvalued.

But without assuming anything about TL66, just by looking at the dynamics of an exact solar conjunction, we already "know better" and are prepared to achieve a better understanding of what his birth Sun was fighting with... because this is simply the dynamics of an exact conjunction with the Sun. Whenever one is born with a conjunction like this, one already knows that a major and critical goal in this life will be developing the ability to separate the Sun from the planet in terms of how they are expressed in one's life, becoming conscious of the control the planet has over the " I " or Self --the Sun.

What from a superficial standpoint is a glorious shining of TL66 in Steve Irwin's life and personality, from a deeper observational standpoint is the manifestation of a relentless inner fight of the Sun to attain a clear sense who he is, of what it means "to be himself", a problematic proposition because "to be", the unconditional and glorious well-being of his sense of his own spiritual self is extremely and painfully difficult, he cannot disentangle himself from TL66, and "being" becomes "being TL66", he is completely subject and subservient to TL66.

So what was Steve Irwin always fighting with? Wild crocodiles... and ironically, he was fighting with them in order to save them. In his tv shows he was constanly annoying and disturbing wild animals, and one was supposed to accept that this was an expression of how much he loved wild life. I don't question his love or his passion, or his dedication to the conservation and well-being of wild animals, but want to point out to the symbolism, to what this is saying about about his inner psychological dynamics, what I described in that first post as his public persona "swallowing him".

To save crocodiles, he had to wrestle with them and beat them, humiliate them, conquer them "for their own good". To a lesser extent, this is what he did with every snake or lizard that he could find in order to show them to the camera in their distress, and then let them go with a kiss. Note that this may be necessary if you want to rescue a crocodile or a tiger or a bear, but in his regular show it simply was an expression of himself, of some "constant" in his character consistent with his passion, pointing to a wild or untamed "dark" side of him which --ironically-- he never touched.

One famous --and wildly attacked without mecry-- criticism of Steve Irwin was written by the Germaine Greer, who is "widely regarded as one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century" (Wikipedia). I want to reproduce it here because it helps to see this "dark" side of him, and because I agree with her. But before reading, take a look at this...

Germaine Greer, born January 29, 1939 (Wikipedia)
Sun = 8,57 Aquarius (18h UT)
TL66 = 8,02 Aquarius!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1865124,00.html

[BEGIN QUOTE]
Irwin was the real Crocodile Dundee, a great Australian, an ambassador for wildlife, a global phenomenon, a superhuman generator of merchandise, books, interactive video-games and action figures. The only creatures he couldn't dominate were parrots. A parrot once did its best to rip his nose off his face. Parrots are a lot smarter than crocodiles.
What seems to have happened on Batt Reef is that Irwin and a cameraman went off in a little dinghy to see what they could find. What they found were stingrays. You can just imagine Irwin yelling: "Just look at these beauties! Crikey! With those barbs a stingray can kill a horse!" (Yes, Steve, but a stingray doesn't want to kill a horse. It eats crustaceans, for God's sake.) All Australian children know about stingrays. We are now being told that only three people have ever been killed by Australian stingrays. One of them must have been the chap who bought it 60 years ago in Brighton Baths where my school used to go on swimming days. Port Philip Bay was famous for stingrays, which are fine as long as you can see them, but they do what most Dasyatidae do, which is bury themselves in the sand or mud with only their eyes sticking out. What you don't want to do with a stingray is stand on it. The lashing response of the tail is automatic; the barb is coated with a bacterial slime as deadly as rotten oyster toxin.
As a Melbourne boy, Irwin should have had a healthy respect for stingrays, which are actually commoner, and bigger, in southern waters than they are near Port Douglas, where he was killed. The film-makers maintain that the ray that took Irwin out was a "bull ray", or Dasyatis brevicaudata, but this is not usually found as far north as Port Douglas. Marine biologist Dr Meredith Peach has been quoted as saying, "It's really quite unusual for divers to be stung unless they are grappling with the animal and, knowing Steve Irwin, perhaps that may have been the case." Not much sympathy there then.
The only time Irwin ever seemed less than entirely lovable to his fans (as distinct from zoologists) was when he went into the Australia Zoo crocodile enclosure with his month-old baby son in one hand and a dead chicken in the other. For a second you didn't know which one he meant to feed to the crocodile. If the crocodile had been less depressed it might have made the decision for him. As the catatonic beast obediently downed its tiny snack, Irwin walked his baby on the grass, not something that paediatricians recommend for rubbery baby legs even when there isn't a stir-crazy carnivore a few feet away. The adoring world was momentarily appalled. They called it child abuse. The whole spectacle was revolting. The crocodile would rather have been anywhere else and the chicken had had a grim life too, but that's entertainment at Australia Zoo.
Irwin's response to the sudden outburst of criticism was bizarre. He believed that he had the crocodile under control. But he could have fallen over, suggested an interviewer. He admitted that was possible, but only if a meteor had hit the earth and caused an earthquake of 6.6 on the Richter scale. That sort of self-delusion is what it takes to be a "real Aussie larrikin".
What Irwin never seemed to understand was that animals need space. The one lesson any conservationist must labour to drive home is that habitat loss is the principal cause of species loss. There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies. There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike. Easy enough to avoid, if you know what's coming. Even my cat knew that much. Those of us who live with snakes, as I do with no fewer than 12 front-fanged venomous snake species in my bit of Queensland rainforest, know that they will get out of our way if we leave them a choice. Some snakes are described as aggressive, but, if you're a snake, unprovoked aggression doesn't make sense. Snakes on a plane only want to get off. But Irwin was an entertainer, a 21st-century version of a lion-tamer, with crocodiles instead of lions.
In 2004, Irwin was accused of illegally encroaching on the space of penguins, seals and humpback whales in Antarctica, where he was filming a documentary called Ice Breaker. An investigation by the Australian Environmental Department resulted in no action being taken, which is not surprising seeing that John Howard, the prime minister, made sure that Irwin was one of the guests invited to a "gala barbecue" for George Bush a few months before. Howard is now Irwin's chief mourner, which is only fair, seeing that Irwin announced that Howard is the greatest leader the world has ever seen.
The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn.
[END QUOTE]

____________________________________________

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:21:51 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Steve Irwin and TL66, 2

TL66 in this case is still not clear to me, but here is a note of good humor... and a list of good points (I confess I like Jeff Corwin shows):

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/jeffcorwinexperience.php

[BEGIN QUOTE]
Crazy people shouldn't be carrying snakes.
... Jeff Corwin goes from exotic locale to exotic locale, searching out the world's most beautiful and exotic creatures, hooting and hollering the entire way. Part Crocodile Hunter, part bad stand-up comic, part mental health clinic visitor's pass, adults and children alike will no doubt be entertained by Jeff Corwin as he explores, educates, and entertains.
The ethos of the show is this: one can best experience nature by having a twit go stomping through a fragile ecosystem with a crew of six cameramen, lighting experts, and sound men, dragging an endangered species out of its home, and sticking it with poles and sticks, yelling things like "Crikey!"
This, of course, is the Crocodile Hunter school of thought on animal entertainment television shows, the similarities of which I am sure is just a coincidence.
I mean, the guy goes looking for snakes in Costa Rica, tramping through the rain forest with a big pole, with low-cut sneakers. Who would've thought somebody sharper than Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, actually exists? At least he's more cowardly, though—his constant whining and hollering and scared little noises keeps you entertained, as well as his moments of self-reflection when he picks up a deadly snake ("What are you doing, Jeff? What are you doing? What are you doing?")
Who is this Jeff Corwin guy? He goes from calm, rational, factual statements to wild-eyed rambling, terrible bad accents, and horrible gangster impressions. The Crocodile Hunter is consistent, at least—this guy's all over the map. You get the feeling that his medication kicks on and off during actual shots. They must keep the camera on this guy 24 hours a day, just to see what inane things he says.
"Crikey! An endangered sea turtle! These are one of the most fragile and endangered animals in the world! And they really hate it when you pick them up out of the water and put them in the boat…like this!"
"Whoa, look at that sucker squirm! They really really hate it when you take this metal tong and stick it in their mouths…like this!"
"These turtles lay beautiful eggs in the sand, and they fry up beautifully. But boy, do they ever hate it when you reach in and steal their eggs…like this!"
The court hereby orders Steve Irwin and Jeff Corwin to undergo relationship counseling for a period of no more than six months.
[END QUOTE]

____________________________________________

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:03:03 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Steve Irwin and TL66, 3

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/09/07/irwin/view/index8.html?show=all
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
And Steve Irwin, for all the good he did for animals, made an annoying habit of bothering creatures that had done nothing to deserve it. I recall seeing him do a piece on snapping turtles. He reached into one's lair and pulled it out, and all I could yell at the TV was, "Leave the goddamn animals alone!" It's possible to educate people about animals without making a nuisance of yourself; of course, it takes more patience and self-control. I feel bad that Irwin died, especially given his young children, but it's hard to ignore character traits that looked to viewers a lot like a death wish. -- Al Mascitti
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
A showman and zoo-keeper does not a conservationist make; Irwin wrestled and manhadled wild creatures for entertainment. He was a staunch and vocal supporter of Australia's right wing anti-Kyoto Prime Minister, and derided a number of "green" activists and causes, including animal conservation rules such as those on crocodile protection and hunting... The man was a caricature.-- Anne
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
He was a zoo-owner and a tv-ham who had opposed genuine scientific conservation efforts because they didn't suit him, using his celebrity and ignorance to ride rough-shod over the work of scientists who knew what they were talking about...  he was too busy annoying dangerous animals on behalf of his tv-ratings to get involved in real conservation. Just because someone stands beside an animal doesn't make them a conservationist. Irwin deserves no such credit. I suspect the current efforts to prevent the film of his death being shown betray the fear by his associates and flagwavers that the world will see a blameless fish being tormented by Irwin and his cameraman before it strikes. Some animal lover. -- Tom Metcalfe
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

An here is the best I have read so far, in terms of the type of understanding I am looking for:

[BEGIN QUOTE]
What Drove Steve Irwin ?
In mourning his death, fans of Steve Irwin are paying tribute to, among other qualities, his courage. Do we have the courage to face the truth about his death and reactions to it?
If we do, we might start by noting that no one really believes that what Irwin’s performances primarily were about was protection of the animals he filmed. (Let’s see, how about a show in which a brave, dashing man encounters exotic and potentially reactive women. He intentionally pushes emotional buttons, yet always narrowly escapes without being slapped or yelled at. That would probably change some attitudes and increase respect for women, right? Female battering by men and unfair salary differentials likely would decrease. Right.) We don’t really believe it, but we pretend to, because if we don’t pretend we are faced with a discussion on what his performances really did represent.
There seems to be little disagreement that Irwin intentionally took risks to titillate his audience: dangerously swinging the cobra, narrowly avoiding the jaws of the croc. But that agreement is where our willingness to face ourselves ends, as immediate reactions to his death have shown. Check out the websites and news accounts. What is telling is the speed of the denial that Irwin was in any way threatening the stingray that killed him, an animal not easily provoked. The denial came before there was time to digest accounts and videotape of what might actually have happened, and continues. Yet what emerged early from reports is that the ray went into a defensive posture after being closely followed, then stung Irwin, who was directly above the animal. Officials deny any evidence that the ray was threatened or provoked; meanwhile all available evidence, including reports of videotape footage and everything we know about the animal’s biology tell us that the ray struck precisely because it was threatened.
Also telling is the extent and vehemence of the online reactions to any suggestion that Irwin’s risk-taking or provoking of animals could have been responsible for his own death. There is anger and attack in these reactions, as if his fans, like the animals he provoked, feel threatened. But that’s absurd, isn’t it? Why would Irwin’s defenders feel personally attacked by such a suggestion? Because they know unconsciously that if Irwin provoked and took risks with deadly animals, he did so precisely because that is what his audience expected and needed, something Irwin was fully aware of – “The audience loves it when I almost die.” Having failed to perpetually get that fix and cheat the inevitable, we now attempt to avoid facing what drove the risk-taking behavior.
We don’t honor Steve Irwin or his family by denying the obvious, but we might by courageously confronting the meaning of these events and reactions. Irwin had a great need for attention which was met for him by his audience. In a symbiosis, their needs were in turn met by his performances, in the primal and vicarious experiencing of starring down death, of narrowly, dramatically and triumphantly escaping deadly, poisonous threats to survival. There are lots of ways to get attention, and nature shows survive without hosts provoking deadly animals, antics that can go wrong in ways that leave us shaking our heads over a “senseless” death. Why take the chances?
What may be most uncomfortable yet important to face is the apparent paradox that, like all men, this man being mourned as a hero and warrior was afraid. He was afraid of fear, more accurately of admitting fear to himself or to others. One way to react to fear is to acknowledge it, access it, and learn ways to integrate it adaptively into choices and behavior. Applied to the real dangers in the natural world, this approach might lead to attitudes of caution, respect, “live and let live”, and the avoidance of senseless deaths. But paradoxically, it takes a great deal of courage to be afraid, maybe more than to swing a cobra by the tail. This is so because of the way men evolved. Survival and leaving offspring depended on fighting for and keeping claim to the resources necessary for survival and reproduction, through aggressive encounters with other males. Telegraph signs of weakness, vulnerability, doubt or incompetence? You’re doomed: as in bottom-of the-pecking-order, denied-resources-for-survival, you’re-screwed, dead “doomed”. This is why it requires a major act of courage for a male to ask directions, cry, or acknowledge fear. We are more likely to see a man taking risks with a poisonous snake than crying.
We can overcome genetic dispositions, but often fear of fear gets pushed to extremes. Many men, likely reacting to past or present threatening environments, respond to fear by attempting to avoid experience of it through denying or disowning, a reaction that gets expressed as bravado, risk-taking, self-destructive behaviors, and aggression, often driven by audiences and often with tragic consequences. All to attempt to disown something that is natural, potentially protective, and in the end cannot be disowned any more than hunger or thirst can. Steve Irwin, like all men, was conflicted in his attempts to find the real meaning of courage: “I have no fear of losing my life.” versus “Fear helps me from making mistakes.” The false and dangerous bravado of “NO FEAR” versus the courage to admit and integrate fear.
The common metaphor for genetically driven behavior is “hard-wired”, which is unfortunately inaccurate in leaving out choice. A more accurate metaphor would acknowledge that our history has loaded software which the system itself is capable of evaluating, unloading, and replacing with new, more effective software. That process requires awareness, insight, and most of all courage. It may be that if we are ready to learn, Steve Irwin’s unfortunate death can be his greatest lesson. -- J.C. Miller
[END QUOTE]

____________________________________________

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 01:31:37 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Steve Irwin and TL66, 4

>his persona swallowed him

this last image ("swallowing him") is TL66 engulfing and dominating the Sun. His "persona" is TL66. TL66 completely dominated him to the point that there was no Sun, only his "persona", only TL66... but what was it?

the answer is almost automatic: it was the crocodile, which he HAD TO dominate and conquer in order to save it. The crocodile was HIS symbol, and himself, but there is no interiorization as in the case of Buzz Aldrin. He IS the show.

One aspect of TL66, that of domination and conquest, imperialism and "hegemony", first brought by Jonathan Dunn in the early stages of TL66 research back in 1999, becomes evident in all its tragedy here.

There is an irrepressible, uncontrolled need to dominate and conquer, disguised as "I'm here to save you".

Change "crocodile" or "snake" by "dragon" or "beast" and you have someone who is fighting dragons all the time, who has made this activity the image of himself and exploits it mercilessly.

Buzz Aldrin became also a symbol of fighting with "the dragon", but his dragon was inside. Here, there is no "inside", everything is projected to the outside.

>... what he "incarnated", what completely dominated and at times overshadowed his Sun, what at other time we could see the Sun triumphing over, easily gets distorted or overvalued.

" the Sun triumphing over" is never internalized and becomes the "stamp" of his own self overpowered by his compulsion to conquer dangerous animals and "saving them"... his "act" was a projection of his need to be saved. His main characteristic was: I do to the animals what I need to do to myself but never do, I use the animals as a scapegoat to not having to face my inner dragon that is eating me, killing me. I just cannot look into myself. I am what others want me to be. The Sun surrenders: he is himself the beaten, conquered, endangered or abandoned animal that needs to be saved, and he enacts this over and over again.

>what his birth Sun was fighting with... major and critical goal in this life will be developing the ability to separate the Sun from the planet in terms of how they are expressed in one's life, becoming conscious of the control the planet has over the " I " or Self --the Sun.

This is what he never did, he became externally a symbol of the internal battle with our own dragon, a battle that he finally lost even though, paradoxically, he is seen as "the hero". He strove his whole life to be this hero in the eyes of people, and made of this strife his whole existence win great passion, with a greatly intensified Sun.

Now I can see it. Now I understand it.

The irony of this is that the woman who could not control herself and felt compelled to shout to the world "Look! the emperor has no clothes!" was herself also an incarnation of the same fight of the Sun with TL66, with the dragon or the beast that eats her.

What from a superficial standpoint is a glorious shining of TL66 in Steve Irwin's life and personality, from a deeper observational standpoint is the manifestation of a relentless inner fight of the Sun to attain a clear sense who he is, of what it means "to be himself", a problematic proposition because "to be", the unconditional and glorious well-being of his sense of his own spiritual self is extremely and painfully difficult, he cannot disentangle himself from TL66, and "being" becomes "being TL66", he is completely subject and subservient to TL66.

Juan

____________________________________________

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:08:07 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Steve Irwin and TL66

Found an article by Michael O'Reilly with a birth time of "1 a.m.":

[BEGIN QUOTE]
** This birth time should be considered a ballpark figure, and comes to me through Australian astrologer Milton Black: "I wrote to Steve a number of years ago, and he thought it was very early in the morning, around 1:00 am".
[END QUOTE]

This gives:

Sun = 2Pi31
TL66 = 3Pi29

Icarus = 7Aq25
Mercury = 8Aq00

Juan

____________________________________________

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:49:45 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] "Internalizing" "Incarnations"

>... you mention, "internalizing" incarnations, that Steve Irwin failed in "internalize" TL66. While you illustrate this well, I am wondering if this is something that one should do with one's incarnations, TL66 or otherwise.

the "should", i.e., the necessity to internalize, may be something an individual never feels the need to. Some people are very comfortable without ever facing to what extent their relationships are projections of their inner conflicts. Typically they do not take responsibility for what they are doing to others, and have a tendency to blame others for what goes wrong.

this can go on forever until you realize that you are causing pain and fear, that you are being insensitive, aggressive and invasive, that you would not like others to treat you the way you are treating them... or until your own pain begins to eat you and you don't know what to do with it. Not knowing what to do with pain or with fear is a typical characteristic of this kind of people.

when the pain finally appears, either yours or of others, then internalizing is a necessity, a "should". By "internalizing I simply mean adopting as your own what before you never took responsibility for.

In the case of Steve Irwin this tendency is very evident in his attitude toward animals in his shows. The analogy given in the letter I quote written by J.C. Miller illustrates this:

[BEGIN QUOTE]
... we might start by noting that no one really believes that what Irwin’s performances primarily were about was protection of the animals he filmed. (Let’s see, how about a show in which a brave, dashing man encounters exotic and potentially reactive women. He intentionally pushes emotional buttons, yet always narrowly escapes without being slapped or yelled at. That would probably change some attitudes and increase respect for women, right? Female battering by men and unfair salary differentials likely would decrease. Right.) We don’t really believe it, but we pretend to, because if we don’t pretend we are faced with a discussion on what his performances really did represent.
[BEGIN QUOTE]

>Did Steve Irwin "need" to internalize TL66 because it was an SDO that would overwhelm him otherwise?

I guess that's a matter of opinion. In these cases, I think the best way to answer is: ask this question to his wife or his children...

>Does one need to "internalize" incarnations if those incarnations involve less malevolent influences such as Okyrhoe, Crantor or UJ438? Are there other inherent psychological challenges involving incarnations which we all need to confront?

Anything that is not "internalized" feeds your shadow and makes it stronger. I was born with Venus only 0,12' behind the Sun, you cannot say Venus is "malevolent", but I wonder if you can imagine how painful in can be!

The explanation is in the dynamics between the planet and the Sun: if we don't allow the Sun "to be" without conditions, to shine and extend it wings of glory, instead of being this or being that, you will be in conflict and the conflict will be very painful. If you do not internalize any of it, if you remain blissfully unaware of the pain and the conflict that is controlling you, you will project it outside, you will create it and feed it around you.

I don't think Okyrhoe, Crantor, etc are "less malevolent" than TL66, nor do I think that TL66 is malevolent just like a crocodile or snake are not "malevolent" (Steve Irwin, if anything, will always be a living testimony of this). What can become "malevolent" is the way we deal with them, the relationship we have with them. The "evil", in my perspective, comes with the denial, the psychological deafness made out of fear, the refusal to take responsibility or "internalize" the demons you are fighting with.

I don't think there is anything malevolent in "the Dragon" or "the Beast". They are not "evil" to me. What is "evil" is your surrender to them, i.e., the failure to internalize them or accept them as one part of yourself.

Juan


  
Return to index page