Comments on: Cosmic Karma with Marguerite Manning – Paranormal Podcast 133

By: philip hopkins

philip hopkins — Fri, 20 May 2011 20:38:35 +0000

What a great podcast!! Extremely interesting and thought provoking. This astrologer really knows her stuff.
I have been on my own spiritual journey for some years now. As a pragmatist and one who needs empirical evidence of the existence of things unseen, I found your interview quite stimulating. Marguerite Manning’s recognition of both science and spirit in the ultimate search for true wisdom and self-satisfaction was both refreshing and refreshingly accurate. I’ve read her book and looked at my own birth chart and those of several people close to me. Extremely accurate descriptions all around. She is really on to something. Read Cosmic Karma and like me, I think you’ll be hooked. I know you’ll be more open to new ideas.

By: Susan Griffin

Susan Griffin — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:02:08 +0000

Jim, loved this show. Just found it on the net. This is the most articulate astrologer I’ve ever heard. Her concept of the soul’s contract with the universe is new, makes sense and is extremely well thought out. I just went to Ms Manning’s website and bought her book, Cosmic Karma. I have a new respect and a better appreciation and understanding of astrology. She is brilliant. Thanks for bringing her to me.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 24 May 2010 22:59:42 +0000

Loved this show Jim. So much so that I bought Ms. Manning’s book and was not disappointed. I’ve always felt there was a link between astrology and astronomy and she makes an excellent case for that. Keep giving us great interviews like this and I’ll keep listening.
Best,
Steve

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 21 May 2010 02:03:23 +0000

I have to tell you Jeff, your comments surprise me. To claim to be opened about most “paranormal” topics but not the science of astrology, (yes science) when at one time it was part of the science of astronomy baffles me.

As far as the Precession of the Equinox goes, you should have listened to all of this lady’s podcasts as she explains how that very scientific phenonenon (the Sun backing up one degree every 72 years) is the basis for her breakthrough astrological concepts and the very reason she uses the tropical zodiac. Also to question this science based on the fact that the influence of other celestial bodies in the heavens are NOT addressed and explained to your satisfaction is kind of like saying none of the organs in the human body serve any real purpose because to this day we human beings (who are so knowledgeable about everything) still don’t know what contribution the appendix makes or purpose it serves. Very limited thinking for someone who is open minded to aliens, crops circles and perhaps Bigfoot.

Just a few thoughts to ponder.
Tom

By: Dorothy Vacey

Dorothy Vacey — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:45:48 +0000

What a great podcast! Thank you Jim. After listening to this remarkable lady I went out and bought her book and was astonished at how accurate and insightful it was. I don’t think I’ll ever look at the stars in the same way again.

Dorothy V.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Mon, 17 May 2010 15:40:34 +0000

Hey Jim,

This was a great interview with Marguerite Manning. I discovered her a couple of years ago when Walter Cruttenden of the Binary Research Institute interviewed her on his show “Cosmic Influence”.
I am totally impressed with her explanation of why she uses tropical astrology vs. sidereal (which directly addresses the first reviewer’s comments that the stars don’t line up exactly to the calendar anymore). If you know anything about astrology, this is a very interesting and breakthrough concept as it directly addresses the precession of the equinox.

I’m a big fan of your program in general and this interview in particular and sent a link out to a lot of my friends. Keep up the great work and I’m certainly a loyal listener.

By: Stephanie Buyer

Stephanie Buyer — Sun, 16 May 2010 19:52:29 +0000

I thought this was a great interview and I was amazed at how much this woman knew. As a result I listened to her on other podcasts and after doing so, I believe what she admired most about Carl Sagan was his ability to view the universe from a “spiritual perspective”, as well as a scientific one. Something she claimed most of today’s hard scientist do not do. Thus, limiting our perspective. Knowing what I know about Carl Sagan, he believed in healthy skepticism, not embracing a theory until one had the facts, but not necessarily rejecting it out of hand just because they weren’t there yet…real science as far as I’m concerned.

Great interview Jim, it made me think about my limiting view of the Universe and regardless of what the reviewer above has to say, I think Dr. Sagan would appreciate Ms. Manning’s open minded view of the Universe and her passion for exploring the stars beyond what we know of them now. I read her book and was amazed at the accuracy of her interpretations of the fixed stars and the outer visible universe. (By the way, as far as the Precession of the Equinox, she says her works is based on the fact that the stars “don’t line up any more because they are a reflection of the soul’s past….interesting).

Stepphanie.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 12 May 2010 20:05:22 +0000

I was astonished how much she admired Carl Sagan. Sagan did not promote astrology and with very good reason bashed and debunked astrology with great rigor. Carl Sagan was an amazing scientist and philosopher. We can learn a lot from him and can not stand when Astrologers associate them selves with him.
I appreciate the show but it is getting harder and harder to listen to due to the complete lack of logic and skepticism in the interviews. I too have an open mind but we should not just be fed assertions without proper questioning. Skepticism is not Cynicism. Skepticism is using logic reasoning and evidence to come to a conclusion based on facts and knowledge.

Just my two cents Jim, thanks for the shows.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:29:29 +0000

Hi Jim; just listened to the “Cosmic Karma” episode. I like to be open minded about most paranormal topics, but I’ve got to say that I just can’t buy into astrology. The reasons for my main doubts are listed below. Maybe the next time you interview an astrologer, you could squeeze in one or two of the following questions? I’d really be interested in the responses. I believe I’ve got my facts more or less correct here, but feel free to double-check. Thanks.

Given that the zodiac was defined about 2000 years ago, the precession of the earth has shifted the zodiacal constellations since then. Although we think of someone born on January 1 as being a Capricorn, the sun is actually in Sagittarius on that date. Why doesn’t modern astrology take this shift into account?

Only five planets (not counting Earth) were known when astrology began. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were not discovered until 1781, 1846, and 1930 respectively. This means that someone had to create properties for these planets to give them relevance to astronomical charts. Does this mean that all previous charts were incomplete? Who is credited with their inclusion to modern astrology and on what basis were the influences of these planets chosen?

As we now know, there are many more bodies in the solar system than just 8 or 9 planets. Why isn’t dwarf planet Eris (discovered in 2005) included in astrological charts? It’s actually larger than Pluto (albeit further distant). What about Saturn’s moon Titan, which is larger than the planet Mercury?

Just a few thoughts to ponder. Thanks, Jim, and keep the shows coming!