Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:03:52 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Bombing of UN HQ Iraq

The bombing of Baghdad's UN Headquarters was a BU48 incarnation:

   Sun     =  26,07 Leo                 
   Venus   =  26,20 Leo                 
   BU48    =  26,35 Leo                 

This is using only conjunctions. At this moment I don't have anything to say about BU48/Alastor...

The Black Moon is also obviously involved:

   Moon    =  20,34 Tau                 
   Apogee  =  21,35 Tau r               

The exact conjunction (or simply exact lunar apogee) happened less than 2 hours later...

These to me are the main significators of the event, or, in other words, the keys to the meaning of the event. The Moon at apogee is an opportunity to explore some of the topocentric alternatives. I use 12:30 U.T., 33N19 / 44E24

   topocentric Moon = 20,02 Taurus
   topocentric osculating apogee = 21,03 Taurus
   topocentric empty focus = 17,22 Taurus
   TL66 = 18,02 Taurus

The situation Baghdad is now living --being militarily occupied and ruled by a foreign power-- may be related to the foundation chart of Baghdad (July 31 762, 11:30 U.T). I will also use the UN inaugural chart (24 October, 1945 4.45 pm EST, Washington DC 38N54, 77W02, data by N. Campion posted here by Roy Mackinn):

The sidereal zodiac is used for the comparisons:

   Baghdad Mercury = 19,24 Cancer
   Baghdad Black Moon = 19,37 Capricorn
   Baghdad Moon = 20,02 Libra
   Baghdad Node = 21,15 Capricorn

--> this is obviously a very sensitive "superlunar" spot in the horoscope of Baghdad. It is the lunar reflection, the "Full Moon" of Islam:

   Sun of Islam = 19,53 Cancer
   TL66 United Nations = 19,20 Capricorn
   Mercury United Nations = 21,23 Libra

Both Hylonome and TL66 have been making a square to this axis, as you recall from my posts on the horoscope of Baghdad:

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

   Moon horoscope of Baghdad = 20,03 Libra
--TL66 is effectively in opposition from May 2002 to January 2004, plus orb
--Hylonome is effectively in conjunction from Feb 2003 to July 2004, plus orb

At the time of the explosion last Tuesday we have:

   Saturn foundation of Baghdad = 23,56 Aries
   tr. TL66 UN bomb = 23,15 Aries

   Uranus foundation of Baghdad = 25,53 Aries
   tr. Moon UN bomb = 25,47 Aries

Note that this is a quadruple conjunction...

I think the involvement of TL66 speaks for itself. First, the TL66/Sun exact opposition between Islam and the UN. Second, the Moon/Black Moon/Mercury/Node of Baghdad exactly over this axis, third the TL66 transit in square to these and in opposition to the Moon of Baghdad during especially 2002 and 2003, closely followed by the conjunction of Hylonome.

What I think this means in terms of TL66 and of what I think of the United Nations and its role in Iraq, can be read in my compilation "Bush and Hitler" at my site:

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

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 04:43:14 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Bombing of UN HQ Iraq

... I was thinking in the sense of "meaning", i.e., that BU48 was pointing to what it meant to have targeted the United Nations. Venus is in the middle, mediating between the Sun and BU48, both the Sun and Venus applying to BU48, all 3 in the same degree...

The dynamical feeling is that BU48 "holds the key". Perhaps one should think of this as not just the Sun, but Sun/Venus as a unit (separation 0,13' = cazimi) that is applying to BU48.

I don't have a clear feeling about BU48, and I don't have a feeling of what it means here, but I have some feelings about Sun/Venus, which obviously are central or fundamental to understand the meaning of this event.

Venus in cazimi is so "intimate"... it is the closest contact possible between the "self" and what this self needs to feel fulfilled or consummated. It is, in principle, the highest possible "integrity" -- not morally or ethically but organically, i.e., in terms of pure self-satisfaction or self-interest.

One clear political statement implied by this is telling to the UN: you are not a friend, you are an enemy! We repudiate you! We don't like you! We don't want you to be part of us! Get out!

Venus here is very deeply hurt, "raped", violated... this is evident by the nature of the event (destruction, repudiation). So perhaps BU48 stands for what the UN has meant for Iraq in this conflict. BU48 is "over" the Sun and Venus, "inside" (conjunction), but Sun/Venus doesn't want it.

Something not related to Astrology which nevertheless is very easy to assume in this case is: unlike the Red Cross (for example), which is purely humanitarian and always strives to remain that way, the UN is an extremely politicized entity (to say the least)...

So my feeling --after writing these reflections here-- is that BU48 is the United Nations and Sun/Venus the feelings --or rather, the intentions-- of those who perpetrated the act.

A lot of people will think that it is exactly the opposite, that Sun/Venus *must* be the "good and humanitarian and politically neutral" United Nations, and idea which, to me, is illusory in the extreme.

Anyway, the conjunction of Sun/Venus with BU48 is "bi-univocal" or dialectic (as are probably all solar conjunctions): who plays the terrorist and who plays the victim is interchangeable, because the Sun and Venus produce very strong projections...

One could think on the self-image the United Nations has of itself and strives to project to the world (Sun/Venus), being "corrupted" by BU48. Or the "mythical" UN (Sun/Venus) "fighting against" or being attacked by terrorism (BU48)... but the fact that it is a conjunction points to the powerful projection of its own shadows (BU48), of all the deaths for which it has been directly responsible in Iraq.

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:33:25 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Bombing of UN HQ Iraq - BU48

One point I think is worth mentioning is that the bombing of August 19 was in exact opposition to the peace demonstrations of February 15th. You can read my comments collected here:

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

The relevant positions of that day are:

   BU48 = 25,25 Leo
   Sun = 26,23 Aquarius (12h GMT)
   BL41 = 26,29 Leo

   BU48 Winter solstice = 26,45 Leo
   BU48 last stationary point (29 Nov 2002) = 26,54 Leo
   BU48 Capricorn ingress (sidereal) = 26,17 Leo
   Uranus Capricorn ingress (sidereal) = 26,57 Aquarius

About the Capricorn ingress I had written: <<In a world-scale there are no angles, and the usual practice is to refer things to the previous Capricorn or Aries ingress, especially the Capricorn ingress as used by the Fagan school...>>

I wanted to mention the 2002 Capsolar (either tropical or sidereal) because it is still "ruling" the current events...

Let's remember the position of the bombing on Tuesday:

   Sun = 26,07 Leo
   Venus = 26,20 Leo
   BU48 = 26,35 Leo

I still don't know what BU48 means, but perhaps some of my thoughts of last February can help here, since dynamically, the UN bombing can be seen as the concrete fulfillment (conjunction) of what was then only a potentiality (opposition), or as the integration and union (conjunction) of what was then divided (opposition).

The following quotes represent those parts where "United Nations" is written explicitly:

quote 1: <<What was happening in the world that could simultaneously arouse millions of people to protest on the streets, trying to stop the plans to invade and make war on a country that through a successful manipulation of the United Nations and a relentless punishment of the civilian population by means of "sanctions" is now practically defenseless? >>

NOTE: there is "an echo" of Venus in the last sentence here...

quote 2: <<The U.S. war campaign has also brought to a point of dis-unity the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the European Union, and many other nations internally. This is centaurean. Perhaps this was dramatized on Feb 15th by the exact opposition between the Sun and...>>

NOTE: one of the consequences of the bombing is without question a stronger union in this area.

quote 3: <<... with the pretension of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the Bush war-mongers have manipulated the United Nations since the times of the Gulf War, being responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, and have humiliated Iraq, destroying its sovereignty and forcing it to remain defenseless.>>

NOTE: The United Nations has in many ways been criminal and genocidal against Iraq.

quote 4: <<The recent admonition made by the Arab representative at the U.N. Security Council, that Iraq represents no threat to the security and stability of the region, that the real threat is Israel, who posesses all the military means of mass destruction and the aggressive expansionism, is ignored.>>

NOTE: this proved to be true after it became a pragmatic fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. There may also be some significance in the fact that that same Aug 19th a major suicide attack in Jerusalem put in evidence the shallowness and farse of the "road to peace" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which --as in the case Chechnya-- the United Nations is utterly inoperative.

When I was reading material on the case of Denis Halliday, in charge of the "Oil for Food" program and who resigned from the UN after 34+ years of working there, I realized how little is known about the inner workings, the political manipulations and corruption inside the UN, especially in reference to the case of Iraq...

So, even though I still don't know what to make of BU48, speaking of this case only, it is probable that it is referring to the political corruption and war crimes of the United Nations, or in the words of Denis Halliday, the destruction of Iraqi society perpetrated in its name.

In this regard, the following is interesting (I use the sidereal zodiac here for the comparisons):

   Sun UN (1945) = 7,09 Libra
   TD10 Kingdom of Iraq = 6,56 Libra
   TD10 "Coalition" invasion of Iraq (20/03/2003) = 6,30 Aries

   Mars UN = 0,00 Cancer
   Saturn UN = 0,46 Cancer
   Sun Ba'ath regime = 0,15 Cancer

As I was ready to send this post I saw the following by Kitty Klein:

<<... I would be very interested to know if, at that initial time when Mr GWB first talked about going in to "free" the Iraqi people, or that moment when the decision was finalised to take action, when the first bomb was dropped - could/was the disastrous outcome which has now evolved, could this have been astrologically forecasted? Forgive my lack of learned information but if anyone did such a forecast and has their findings at hand could they tell me briefly the results?  I say briefly as I am not fully understanding of all the planets in their certain places at certian times and what this signifies.>>

I have never been inclined to use Astrology to forecast, and personally, I don't think Astrology was necessary to foresee "the disastrous outcome which has now evolved". And also personally, I think the disaster provoked by this invasion has not yet started.

Nevertheless, when examining the role of TL66 (post from 22 Feb 2003 in the link I provided above), I wrote:

<<This means that the 9/11 2001 event was only a preamble of what would be unleashed if the U.S. is allowed to invade Iraq. Nobody doubts that the Iraqi regime will be destroyed easily, it is the consequences of the unjustified invasion what everybody fears.>>

More thoughts on this are found in my "Bush and Hitler" referred to in my post yesterday.

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:05:32 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Bombing of UN HQ Iraq - BU48

1- could it be that had decisions been made by Bush and Blair etc at another time, weeks earlier or later when planets were in another placement, could this have affected the present situation?
2- Or, could you say that even earlier situations in the planetary skies caused Bush to decide at that moment and therefore the present situation was already the outcome before it even began?
Am I making sense?  This is me trying to get my head around how situations evolve and are created (apart from the obvious stupidity and helpful hand of man and his kind).
I will give you my very personal view. I know others have very different views that may want to share with you at this point.

The answer to these questions depends on the notions you have about the nature of Astrology, of how Astrology works. My own perspective is that nothing of what I am discussing is "caused" in any way by the planets, or has anything to do with "celestial influences" of any kind. The basis of my work is (I think):

1-) reducing reality to an efficient "model" in order to analyze it (this is what I think Astrology does... no influences or causation involved).
2-) clarify and elaborate the possible meaning of the new slow-moving bodies, as important tools that can help produce a better model.
3-) demonstrate how the resulting model constitutes a language or code that helps illuminate the meaning of the reality being modelled.
4-) follow a strict and well-documented methodology based on focal determination and on a particular application of Occam's Razor.

Now, to answer your 2 questions

1-) I think the planetary placements are used so as to "reflect" or "represent" the situation, not the other way around. They will *always* show (or be made to show) the situation, rather than "determine it".

2-) There is no "astral" determinism or "fate" here. The U.S. Congress or the British Parliament could have stopped Bush or Blair at any time, etc. What I see in this case is the determinism of self-interest and of racism, or from another perspective, sheer human stupidity.

In other words, your preoccupation about "getting your head around how situations evolve and are created" is simplified because it does not involve the planets or "the stars", just economy, history, and human greed.

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:38:45 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] Sun/Venus and the UN in Iraq

In my "Notes on methodology" in my site there is an explanation of how I interpret the conjunction to the Sun, which I think I have posted here in the past. I don't think the cazimi "effectively eliminates" the positive side of Venus. I think it actually makes Venus very strong (I myself have Venus in cazimi, 0,12' behind the Sun...)

I see the negativity of Venus in this case an expression not of the Cazimi but of the event itself. The bombing obviously means that Venus is acting in its darker or destructive side.

As a note aside, in Aug 2000 I wrote about the psychological meaning of the close Sun/Venus conjunction in another forum. This is not obviously applicable to this case, but if we think (as suggested earlier) on the possibly Sun/Venus self-image of the United Nations, etc., then it may help clarify the situation:

[BEGIN QUOTE]
The Sun/Venus conjunction, as any other thing in astrology, can manifest in myriad of ways, but if one understands the principles at work, then many disparaging or contradictory conducts fall together under the same Sun/Venus signature, or even "syndrome".
My view (after a lifetime of living with them separated by only 0,12'), assuming that the conjunction is very exact (less than 1 degree), is that the Sun cannot just "be", "being" means here "being Venus". So, for example (one aspect only):
... all values are identified with "me", so I tend to see the world as if I were the center of attention. I am the prize, I am your best asset, and I will do everything I can to prove you that. My whole being is focused in making you feel that, so I will manipulate you, "charm" you until you want me, until I am "the light of your day". But I don't do this for your satisfaction. I really do not see "you", I only "see me" through you, as a projection. You are the object of my pleasure on which I project my identity. You own me, but I cannot stand you being you. You have to be me. I simply am loving myself through you. I will break all resistances, I will come in softly and give you pleasure, because that is my pleasure. But that is the only reason I am doing it: my own pleasure. If it doesn't please me anymore, I will throw you away and find something else. Don't criticize me, don't judge me harshly, because that breaks the spell and is very unpleasant. I cannot handle unpleasantness, specially my own. I am interested only in pleasure and satisfaction. I am a narcissist, I am a magnet who attracts people, I am charming and charismatic, "magic", but behind this, I am devastatingly demanding and voracious. I want satisfaction now! I want to suckle you, for your pleasure and mine. I will have you on my side. If you don't want to be on my side in happy idyll with me, if you don't think that I am great, then you will no longer exist for me. I have an orgasmic personality, my sole presence or company is "delicious", I enhance the value of your life by being in your company. I enhance the value of everything I touch, but if you dare to criticize me, I will punish you with my lack of interest in you, I can then be very cruel with you through indifference, in revenge for your having denied me satisfaction.
In other words, it is the psychology of a suckling child.
[END QUOTE]

On reading this again after a long time, my feeling is that its is applicable to the United Nations, at least in its handling of the Iraqi crisis.

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:09:51 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Sun/Venus and the UN in Iraq

... Would you make any distinction between am applying casimi solar conjunction and a separating on?
The only distinction I make is that applying has "growing" or increasing strength, it is "culminative", while the strength of the separating aspect is withering away, decreasing. However, in the case of the cazimi, the planet is "in the heart of the Sun", at the exact center, like a concentrated laser beam, it is the point of culmination, and I do not apply this distinction.

According to tradition, cazimi does the opposite of combustion or burning. Anyway, it is not a question of a planet being wiped out but of concentrated absorption or identification. The 2 planets in conjunction are still relating to each other, but, in the case of the Sun the planet is so absorbed by it that it seems not to be there. What is needed is a dynamical interpretation of the conjunction, of their dialectical relationship.

from http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts/notes/method.html

<<If a planet is in conjunction or opposition with the Sun, the act of self, the fundamental self-expression, is identified with that planet. The Sun looses its independence and cannot any longer simply "be", which is his nature and his glory. Being means being the planet. The planet also looses its independence and becomes too absorbing, too central and excessive, so much that (as it approaches 0,00') the person cannot see to what extent the nature of the planet is controlling the life. The larger the orb the greater the possibility of "seeing" and negotiating with the planet without loosing the perspective of the self.

<<If a planet or asteroid is focal this way, then I take it as if it is at the core of the person, or of the question, or of the event. Everything a person does which carries the imprint of the self, of this core, will be heavily coloured by the nature of the planet or asteroid in an intensified way. It doesn't matter if the person is aware or not, and certainly doesn't matter if the astrologer cannot see what he/she beforehand assumes the manifestation will be. The person, the meaning of the event, illuminates the meaning of the planet or asteroid. It is a question simply of learning about the person or event in order to learn about its astrological meaning.

<<A planet in exact conjunction or opposition with the Sun is overflowing with power. The person becomes the incarnation (the "master") of the planet. This is the case whether the person is conscious or not, evolved or primitive, socially important or insignificant, angel or devil, or whether he or she is using the planet's energies creatively or the planet is controlling him or her...>>

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:25:35 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Digest Number 1818
BU48 is something like Nessus being a Neptune crosser with an orbit not dissimilar to Nessus.
Just for the record: their orbits don't look so similar to me.

BU48 travels from Uranus to the aphelion of Pluto, without ever crossing Uranus. It is what I call "a Pluto steed". Nessus crosses Neptune, but it never reaches even Pluto's mean distance to the Sun, while it crosses Uranus all-through and reaches the area of control of Saturn (12 AU).

Here is what I had written when suggesting the name "Alastor":

<<It is like a Pluto companion, but its eccentricity is larger than that of Pluto, i.e., its wings are larger, It encompasses the whole of Pluto's distance reach, and, unlike Pluto which comes only as close as Neptune, BU48 almost reaches the aphelion distance of Uranus, coming one step closer than Pluto.

<<... I imagine it as the "twilight" aura that surrounds or announces the realm of Pluto as we approach it, like a very large set of Plutonian wings that extend Pluto's atmosphere to us.  This "atmosphere" is a good symbol of such long-wave open orbits.  Its name is "Alastor", "the avenger", one of the 4 bat-winged, flame-tressed steeds which draw Pluto's black chariot.>>

Here the UN is the inheritor of the mantle, they are the crucified innocents, they are the victims of revenge attack - they directly made no contribution to the war which engendered this situation.
Two former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq, responsible for the "Oil for Food"  Programme: Denis Halliday (Sep'97 - resigned Sep'98) and Hans von Sponek (Sep'98 - resigned Mar 2000), and Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq (Jan 1999 - resigned Mar 2000), disagree with you. They resigned in protest for what the UN was doing in Iraq, which Denis Halliday didn't hesitate to call "genocide".

    http://www.casi.org.uk/

There are many others with similar opinions, but I mention them because they know better than anybody what they are talking about.

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:11:05 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Digest Number 1818
That those who resigned from the UN did so is to their most definite credit. What is important here surely is that the UN 'INHERITED' the policy from the arrogant West who inflicted it on them. They in reality had little choice as a world organisation. Individuals have choices - here it seems to me the UN did not.
I disagree that they didn't have a choice.

As was documented and denounced by many humanitarian organizations around the world, the sanctions against Iraq constituted violations of the Geneva Conventions and of the Charter itself of the United Nations. They were illegal on many grounds and a crime against humanity.

Yet "the Organization" decided to carry on for 12 consecutive years.

It is the true that the UN follows what is ordered to it by the Security Council, but if you decide to follow an order that is inmoral, illegal, and inhumane, executing "sanctions" falling under the legal definition of terrorism, you are responsible for the consequences, you are not innocent.

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 03:51:51 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Digest Number 1818

>I hear what you're saying, Juan, so who do you think controls the U.N.?

The UN Charter says: <<The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.>> So one would have to ask: who controls the Security Council in the case of Iraq?

The answer to this is very straightforward.

I understand that "the Organization" has to follow the orders coming from the Security Council, but these orders must be carried out by real people, real people that in the case of Iraq have had for years first-hand knowledge of the slaughter of civilians produced by the sanctions. These people carrying out the orders do have a choice and are not innocent.


>It just strikes me that the Iraqis struck out at the innocent representatives of a shambles of an international organisation with complex hidden agendas.

I understand your point of view in this regard, but I don't think people who accept to work for the UN in Iraq are "innocent".

The United Nations has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, and yet it presents itself as "humanitarian". The UN "Oil for Food" programme is being 100%  financed by the Iraqis, who must see a large portion of what they are paying being diverted for matters that have nothing to do with "humanitarian aid". In other words, the United Nations "aid" is being sold to them, and at a price that is more than twice its cost.

   http://www.casi.org.uk/guide/compensation.html

<<After the Gulf War, the Security Council determined that Iraq was liable for any economic loss and damage resulting from its invasion of Kuwait. Consequently, the UN Compensation Commission (UNCC) was set up to oversee compensation claims, and the Security Council decided that 30% of Iraq's oil revenue should be paid into a Compensation Fund for this purpose. Eleven years on, both the amount paid in compensation and the procedure whereby claims are processed have become increasingly questioned, and compensation has become a bone of contention within the Security Council.

<<The magnitude of the sums that Iraq must pay in compensation is a cause of considerable concern. According to a November 2002 report by the Office of the Iraq Programme, by 31 October 2002, $16.3 billion of Iraq's revenues generated under oil for food had been diverted to the UNCC. Out of this sum, $278 million went to pay for the "operating expenses" of the UNCC, such as lawyers' fees. By contrast, the UN has stated that the total value of the humanitarian goods that have arrived in all of Iraq under the oil for food scheme by 30 September 2002 was $24.5 billion.>>


Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:13:41 -0600
Subject: Re: [Centaurs] Re: Digest Number 1818

>Fiona Watson, a fellow Scot, went under the aegis of the U.N. in June to help with the reconstruction of Iraq - an original destruction of which the U.N. did not sanction...

It did not sanction it, but it allowed it, having the power to stop it. It is hypocrisy on the part of the permanent members of the Security Council to say that they didn't have the power to stop it. What happened is that they were afraid of paying the price of doing that. It is the hypocrisy of diplomacy.

It is also the moral weakness of, for example, the Secretary General, not to have stepped down and denounce the situation, calling things for what they are. Power is in the person, not in what is written in paper or in the law, and this war proved it.


>She went there because of her linguistic skills as an interpreter. She died in the bomb blast What crime did she commit?

None.  But we don't know why she went unless we ask her, and often people themselves don't know why. We don't know the dilemmas she faced, we don't know how she weighted the risks, etc.  "Because of her linguistic skills as an interpreter" is only a justification. She was an educated person, acting out of free will, she was anything but "innocent".


>Or is she paying the price of what those who went before her might more honestly have been a target for - if indeed a target can at all be justified ?

You are talking about the "innocent" victims of terrorism. I know most people feel that those who die as a result of a terrorist attack are "innocent". This is the usual view of terrorism.

Maybe it is a question of the words we use. I don't think they are "innocent", nor do I think that they are "guilty". I see it as a question of accepting responsibility. I am not "guilty" of the crimes of my government or of my president, or the crimes of my father or my brother, but I carry the consequences, and this is my responsibility.

I understand and accept that a lot of people don't feel that way.

Juan

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:19:06 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] some intuitions of BU48

... To pay with one's life (in the physical and the symbolical sense) is "sacrifice". For example: a mother who dies in childbirth. But we can also interpret it reversely: a child that dies, or that is born dead (or aborted) "sacrificed"  himself or herself in order to teach something to the mother or parents... This is a more positive (though in-humane) side of BU48.

I mention this because I feel this is related to BU48 --though unable to give good examples for now (and maybe I am wrong). Another intuition, related to what you say, is the "seventy times seven" of Lamech:

<<Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, consider my words, because I have slain a man to my sorrow and a youth to my grief. Because vengeance has been exacted seven times on Cain's behalf, on Lamech's it shall be seventy times seven.>> [translations differ].

This is a mysterious passage as most of the first chapters of Genesis. It seems to be related to the passing of something "evil" over from generation to generation (Lamech is a descendant of Cain). Then Jesus used this same passage in reference to how many times one must forgive. Perhaps another clue about the positive meaning of BU48.

I don't feel BU48 (or Alastor) is related to "revenge" like Nessus; however, I like your perspective when talking about "the sins of the fathers", the "inherited mantle". I still don't have it clear, but feel this may be in line with BU48.

Alastor is the name of one of the black horses of the chariot in which Proserpine was kidnapped by Pluto. This mythical scene (the rapt of Proserpine) seems to be reflected in this case, and "revenge" is not the issue. The same happens with the figure of the "avenging angel" (or demon) also associated with the (wonderful) name Alastor.

A question of words only, but "vengueance" (possible BU48) and "revenge" (possibly Nessus, although I reject this way of seeing Nessus) are not the same thing. The idea of revenge ("retaliation", in Israeli terms) seems something hideous and malignant that drags people down into the quagmire. An avenging angel or demon has a different connotation, it has more to do with providential or "cosmic" (but cruel and implacable) justice.

"Revenge" always feeds itself and generates more revenge (Israel-Palestine), while the "avenging angel" (like 9/11) is more apocalyptic and final. One (Nessus) is a form of repetitive abuse, the other (BU48, more plutonian) is terminal and deadly.

Juan




     
Return to index page