CHAPTER SIX:

THE FIELD OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

EDWARD TARABILDA: Relationships are a very popular subject in America. Gurus in this field earn mega-dollars through books and seminars describing how to find an ideal mate, how to get what you want out of relationship, and the do's and dont's of good interaction.

What can the Astrology of the Eight Fields of Living contribute to this field?

PSYCHOLOGIST: I hope we counselors fare better than people in other fields of living you've discussed earlier. I've made it my life's work to help people in their interpersonal relationships, and feel that relationship counseling really helps a lot of people. Half the marriages in this country end in divorce, and most people bear the emotional scars of broken relationships, either their own or their parents'.

EDWARD TARABILDA: The weak Saturn we mentioned governs the physical aspect of marriage in the world horoscope. What I mean is not that Saturn governs interpersonal relationships, but that it governs the physical and legal aspects of marriage.

PSYCHOLOGIST: I thought that Saturn governed the field of physical health.

EDWARD TARABILDA: The field of physical health is really the field of physicality, which includes the institution of marriage, since marriage is a form of physical inter-dependence and even bondage. The emotional and sexual intimacy of marriage are different; they are more appropriate in this section on relationships than in our dialogue on physical health.

With a weak Saturn governing physicality in the world horoscope the institution of marriage comes under stress. People find marriage hard work, and they have many vices related to marriage, particularly deceit. They also don't gain lasting happiness and satisfaction from marriage. In-laws are often a problem. In summary, there are many obstacles to marital bliss in the world horoscope, but people do not lack courage in trying marriage again and again, even against the odds.

This tendency to want to marry despite one's own or others' poor track record also relates to the primal desire nature of people as seen through the world horoscope, which we will discuss in the field of living called "wealth".

PSYCHOLOGIST: I still don't understand how the field of physicality relates to the field of interpersonal relationships. I've heard you say in the past that the field of interpersonal relationships governs our sexuality and intimacy, as well as our general interactions with others, so how do you know which field applies with married people?

EDWARD TARABILDA: That is a very good question. The field of interpersonal relationships applies to all of our personal interactions, including our most intimate sexual ones. Once you move in with someone, share the same physical space and breath the same air, the physicality has an influence. This influence is magnified by the legal and moral obligations of marriage.

Some couples are great lovers but lack the skills for meeting the daily obligations of marriage. For them the field of interpersonal relationships may be strong and compatible, but the field of marriage may be weak and incompatible. For others the reverse can be the case -- they handle the marriage duties well, but the bedroom and interpersonal interactions are weak or incompatible.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Are these the two primary factors in your compatibility studies?

EDWARD TARABILDA: They are important factors, but as I pointed out in our dialogue on dharma and caste nature, caste is the most important part of compatibility because moral and ethical issues cause the most volatile reactions and responses. Having the same caste nature is the first prerequisite to a strong and happy marriage, then come the two fields of living just discussed, physicality and interpersonal relationships.

Since the hub of the wheel of the personality, the spiritual life, is so important in the life of each individual, it is good if there can be compatibility in this field as well.

PSYCHOLOGIST: What about the other four fields?

EDWARD TARABILDA: The field of creative play is also important because it determines how well two people play together. Successful play is a wonderful way to defuse volatility in a relationship.

Mental health should also be strong and compatible . Strong mental health helps us spring back from down-times in a relationship, but when it is weak in either partner, then the relationship is like a rubber-band which has lost its elasticity. It can't flex with the give and take of constant interaction. Similarly, if the mental health energies of two people are incompatible, they might have surface disagreements, but that will not be a serious threat to their relationship.

Finally, if a couple is going to work together, they should have professional compatibility, too. If they don't work together this field of living is not so important for compatibility.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Do you use the same principles in evaluating business partnerships and relationship compatibility between parents and children, brothers and sisters, or other more remote family relationships?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Yes.

TM MEDITATOR: I've never heard of such an approach. The Maharishi Jyotish practitioners have a thirty-six point test for judging compatibility which I haven't even heard you mention.

YOGANANDA DISCIPLE: Yes, we use this Vedic astrological test as well, although with mixed results.

EDWARD TARABILDA: Such a test is a late aberration in this field and it was developed at a time when the true science of the stars had already been lost. It is of no value in judging compatibility the way it is presently used. In fact, I know a number of couples who have been judged a perfect match based upon such a test, and their marriages didn't last a year.

The compatibility studies being performed by eastern and western systems of astrology are absolutely worthless! Sorry, I cannot mince words here!

PSYCHOLOGIST: I have had similar experiences as you. I see a lot of couples for divorce mediation who have been told them by an astrologer that they were extremely compatible, or that they were soul-mates, or some other hyperbole.

EDWARD TARABILDA: This is why I will not mince my words when I talk about how corrupt the various forms of astrology are in the world today. People are being seriously hurt through the misguided representations of conventional astrologers.

PSYCHOLOGIST: You seem to have a fanatical zeal, which I am leery of.

EDWARD TARABILDA: It is impossible for me not to appear that way, given what I have discovered and my decision to warn people of my findings.

PSYCHOLOGIST: That may be true, and I must give you the benefit of the doubt on that basis, but I am still wary.

EDWARD TARABILDA: I'm happy you are wary; I wouldn't want you to accept what I say on faith alone. Stay alert, even skeptical, to everything I offer, but stay open.

PSYCHOLOGIST: I'll try to stay open-minded. I agree that people are becoming increasingly rigid, callous, and fundamentalist at heart. It is interesting to find astrological confirmation for something which is obvious to me.

Turning to another matter, do you feel that relationship counselors can help stem the tide divorce in America? They are publishing a lot of good books in this field, as well as offering well-attended seminars on this subject.

EDWARD TARABILDA: There is a lot of helpful knowledge in the popular books and seminars, but at the same time, there are still pervasive strands of ignorance which pervade the other useful messages.

PSYCHOLOGIST: You will have to be more specific. I don't follow what you mean by "strands of ignorance".

EDWARD TARABILDA: To the extent that people are left with the impression that one's spouse exists to fulfill one's needs, and vice-versa, they are being kept in ignorance. Ideal relationships are based on true friendship. When you watch true friends interact, you will find that they don't demand anything from one another. They meet where it is a joy to meet and they do separate things without feeling guilty for not including their friend. They also wake up each day wanting to support their friend's aspirations regardless of whether it includes them, and they expect the same attitude from their friend towards them.

The friendship model requires a high degree of self-actualization to put into practice, but it is the best model I know for married couples to emulate.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Children create complications. This model has shortcomings where children are involved. You can't just tell your wife that you are going swimming and that she must care for the kids. Children create mutual obligations between the parents which don't exist in the usual friendship.

EDWARD TARABILDA: If we use children as the excuse not to treat our partner as a friend, we are making a great mistake. This is why I counsel couples not to marry unless each is willing to raise the children irrespective of whether the other spouse is a participant. If a spouse takes total responsibility for raising a child by themselves, they can never use the child as a bargaining chip for manipulate the other spouse. They are literally forced to keep interacting as friends rather than two people tied together by obligation.

PSYCHOLOGIST: That is a challenging idea.

EDWARD TARABILDA: My other objection to the typical approach to interpersonal relationships is that the prescriptions are too generalized to be of substantial value. For example, it is commonplace to tell men to be more "in their masculine", and women "in their feminine". As a general rule women are more emotional than men and men are more rational than women, but some men are more emotional in how they relate, and some women more rational. The real issue is whether the man's relating style is compatible with the woman's, not the archetypal differences between men and women. Understanding the universal differences between masculine and feminine approaches is of some value in relationship, but if one fails to understand both one's own and one's partner's unique character in detail, one is still likely to have significant problems in the relationship.

Here is a brief sketch of the eight relating styles:

1. Sun -- charismatic, confident, intuitive, authoritative, somewhat impersonal, comfortable in almost any type of situation, but with the potential to become cocky and authoritarian when weak.

2. Moon -- compassionate, caring, empathetic, nourishing, non-prejudiced, motherly, passionate, but with the potential to become cruel (withholding love) when weak.

3. Mars -- straight to the point, sharp, aggressive, firm, sexually passionate, relates best with opposite sex, but with the potential to become angry, jealous and envious when weak.

4. Mercury -- great flexibility and adaptability in how one relates, deep verbal communication, playful, plays on words, less energy to devote to relationships, with the potential to become verbose and hyper when weak .

5. Jupiter -- selfless server and giver, joyful, expansive, celebrative, enjoys children and family life; when weak, attached to home and family in a way which can be stifling to others.

6. Venus -- romantic, positive, appreciative, idealistic, charming, but superficial and mundane when weak.

7. Saturn -- firm, stable, quiet, patient, helpful in a crisis, liking clear boundaries in relationship, but when weak, plodding, tedious, insecure, possessive, controlling, and too quiet.

8. Nodes of the Moon -- rebellious, iconoclastic, revolutionary, unusual style of relating, and when weak, overly pugnacious and rebellious.

Any questions?

PSYCHOLOGIST: How do these styles relate to one another?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Certain planets have natural affinity to one another and others lack natural affinity, and some planets are neutral to one another. Planets with natural affinity work best together. Planets with poor affinity cause trouble. Neutral planets require work to keep the energies supporting each other.

Let me read a list to you of these affinities:

Sun is friendly to Jupiter, Mars and Moon.

Moon is friendly to the Sun and Mercury.

Mars is friendly to the Sun, Moon and Jupiter.

Mercury is friendly to Venus and Sun.

Jupiter is friendly to Sun, Moon and Mars.

Venus is friendly to Saturn and Mercury.

Saturn is friendly to Mercury and Venus.

Here are the natural enmities:

Sun is unfriendly to Venus and Saturn.

Moon is not unfriendly to any planet.

Mars is unfriendly to Mercury.

Mercury is unfriendly to the Moon.

Jupiter is unfriendly to Venus and Mercury.

Venus is unfriendly to Moon and Sun.

Saturn is unfriendly to Sun, Moon and Mars.

If a planet is neither a friend nor an enemy of another planet, it is considered neutral. For example, the Sun is neutral to Mercury, and Jupiter is neutral to Saturn.

PSYCHOLOGIST: So if two people have compatible planets governing the field of relationships, will they tend to get along better?

EDWARD TARABILDA: In general, yes, especially if those planets are strong and well placed in each of their individual horoscopes.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Why does that make such a difference?

EDWARD TARABILDA: People with a strong relating style are not as bothered by incompatibilities and can make better use of compatible situations. They also work better with neutral energies.

PSYCHOLOGIST: So the likelihood of a successful relationship is judged not only by two people's compatibility in each of the eight fields of living, but also by how strong their own planetary configurations are in each of these fields?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Correct. And the general descriptions I have given of each planet, and how compatible each planet is with the others, can also be used in any other field of living.

PSYCHOLOGIST: I'm not sure I follow you.

EDWARD TARABILDA: If one person has the Sun governing his spiritual life, and another Venus, then there is some incompatibility between them. It often manifests in the Venusian partner wanting more attention than the Sun is willing to give. The same can hold true if these planets govern marriage.

If a couple works together, and Mars and Saturn are the respective ruling planets in the career field, then the partner with Saturn will resist the supervisory attitude of the partner with Mars. However, if they do not work together, an incompatibility in the planets ruling their career nature may not be significant.

If Jupiter and Saturn, respectively, govern the field of wealth (primal desire nature), then the energies are neutral to one another and require some conscious cooperation between the parties to ensure harmony.

VEDIC ASTROLOGER: I've never heard of natural friendships between planets being used to determine compatibility. Natural friendships are only used to determine the over-all strength of a planet.

EDWARD TARABILDA: Now you have learned something very important. Whether you accept it is up to you.

The respective house positions of the planets is also important. When the planet governing a particular field of living is in the sixth, eighth or twelfth house from the planet governing the same field for the partner, they are externally incompatible in that field.

PSYCHOLOGIST: What is the difference between internal and external compatibility or incompatibility?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Internal compatibility relates to the natural friendships I talked about earlier. External compatibility relates to the house positioning of the planets. If people are internally compatible in a field of living and externally incompatible, then, for example, they may both like going to art museums, but have difficulty deciding on a mutually convenient time and place to meet.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Which is more important?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Inward incompatibilities are more crucial. Outward incompatibilities may lead to friction, but not major rifts if the inward compatibilities are strong.

The reverse situation, external compatibility and inward incompatibility, is more likely to lead to divorce. When both forms of incompatibility are present, this is sure to lead to either a divorce or a standing feud.

PSYCHOLOGIST: What else do you like or dislike about the books and seminars on interpersonal relationships for today's couples?

EDWARD TARABILDA: They need to honor differences: When someone acts in a way that bothers you, then recognize that the problem is in you, not him. Whether his behavior meets your standards, or anyone else's, doesn't matter. Your state of mind need not depend on others' behavior. If it does, the only problem in your domain is your reaction, not his action. Don't project your problem onto another person.

This approach need not turn you into a wooden Indian. By all means express your feelings, but be sensitive and make sure you are not objectifying your feelings. Use words like, "It seems to me that you almost never help me with the dishes. What do you think?", rather than, "You never help with the dishes".

PSYCHOLOGIST: We use this principle as a general rule in teaching the art of relating.

EDWARD TARABILDA: But it is just as often undermined by trying to change our partner to fulfill our own needs. Friends never do that to each other.

Certainly, a spirit of mutual service and giving is important in any relationship, but not as a specific requirement in a specific situation.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Why do you think this principle of friendship and mutual acceptance is so often subverted in books and seminars on relationships?

EDWARD TARABILDA: To be successful in the marketplace we must tell people what they want to hear. The public loves easy answers and charismatic role models, not sermons on the need for self-examination and mutual friendship.

PSYCHOLOGIST: Does that not imply that maybe your approach is too advanced for the average person?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Certainly. That is why John Bradshaw and all his ego-building approaches are so popular. Getting in touch with the inner child seems easier than getting in touch with the higher Self. Most people just want to escape their present pain, not try to figure out the ultimate cause of all suffering, as the Buddha suggested.

Inner child work and similar approaches may help some people, but they should also not be left with the illusion that the results will be deep, permanent solutions to problems in relationship.

THEOSOPHIST: I am always helped by examples from the lives of great people. Could you give us some examples?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Richard Nixon had a very weak relating style through Saturn. Thus, his gestures were often wooden and stiff, almost laughably so at times. And his social manner could best be described as strained. People were shocked when they heard his personal tapes as president; the language was so vulgar. Yet we have to admire his accomplishments, given this handicap.

A man with a wonderful relating style was Arthur Ashe, the great tennis champion, who handled himself with such dignity and charm with the press and the fans. Even when he talked about contracting AIDS during heart surgery, he did so with great skill.

James Dean, a cult idol before and after his death, had a strong Saturn governing his relating style. This made him shy and reserved in how he related, but charismatic due to other factors related to his energy body and how he projected that energy.

There are some interesting relationships between these two fields of living which I will try to clarify when we discuss mental health.

PSYCHOLOGIST: What about cases from your own files?

EDWARD TARABILDA: When people have a weak interacting style, it affects their ability to be deeply intimate. They either fall into dependency, or have difficulty making commitments, or both. I'm thinking of a man I counseled recently who has a weak Moon governing his interacting style. He tends to be possessive. Fortunately, he is strong spiritually and is able to see this weakness and adapt to it.

Problems in relationship aren't always caused by a weak planet. A strong Sun or Mars, for example, can make dependent people afraid of that strength.

As you can see, relationships are another complex subject, but I think the general rules we have covered are clear. Do we have anything left to discuss in this field?

QUANTUM PHYSICIST: I'm a little out of my element in this discussion, but I would like you to discuss in more detail this principle of honoring difference. It seems so important and yet we often forget it in real life situations.

EDWARD TARABILDA: Let me give an example which took place a few years ago. I was teaching a class on this holistic view of Vedic knowledge to a small, intimate group of friends. After a few weeks one of the women called saying that she and her friend were going to drop out of the class, and that it pained them greatly to do so, but they felt that my ego was too big. I asked how this big ego manifested itself. She said it demonstrated itself in my refusal to talk nicely about other astrologers. She said that she had many friends who were astrologers and it was very painful when I suggested that they were fundamentally deluded about the science of the stars, even if possibly good psychics or counselors. It showed such arrogance, from their point of view, that they could no longer stand it. Who was I to make such judgments?

I asked her, "How are we able to judge when someone is operating from his small, limited ego or not? Don't both sides always accuse the other of being in the ego? How can we tell who is right?"

She admitted she didn't know. I suggested that we know someone is in his ego when he demands that another start or stop acting in a certain way for the comfort of the person making the demand. "Isn't that what you are doing in this situation?", I asked. She was shocked at the realization of how she was projecting onto me what she was, in fact, guilty of.

To the great credit of both women, they saw their mistake and finished the class happily.

QUANTUM PHYSICIST: Students should be able to drop classes they don't like.

EDWARD TARABILDA: That is a different matter. If you don't feel that you are learning from someone, you can drop the class, but then the process won't be emotionally charged, as in the previous example.

QUANTUM PHYSICIST: I see.

EDWARD TARABILDA: This is the Gyana yogic way of dealing with projected emotions. It doesn't allow people to keep their illusions. Through the razor's edge of discrimination people are forced to confront their issues. Others won't be able to do this and will become your enemy.

There is another, more feminine approach, one more generally acceptable to the person on the receiving end. This is when we totally surrender to the person and his or her demands. We say, "How can I improve or do better? What can I do to make you feel better"?

I don't like this approach, because it allows people to project without learning about their projection, but it can be argued that such surrender also helps people see what they are really doing, and learn to change. Bhakti yogins will favor this approach, because it does not pinch the heart.

This issue of honoring difference came up the other day with a woman who wanted to stop payment on a check because I supposedly told her to have a consultation which she didn't think she needed, and in hindsight, didn't need. What it boiled down to is that she didn't want to take responsibility for her decision to have this particular consultation, and wanted to blame me for it. I refused to let her off the hook, and, to her credit, she finally decided to honor the check. She was physically and psychologically off-balance at the time, and her negative response to the consultation was extremely unusual, but such things do happen, and one must be very alert to spot the problem at its inception. Otherwise, it is harder to help the person see his or her projection.

Our inability to honor difference is due to the loss of a true science of the stars some three to four thousand years ago. One must first be clear about the archetypal differences in all the various fields of living, then one can accept them fully. We have no training in our culture for this vital archetypal style of thinking. It is a great tragedy!

Let me now summarize the significance of Mars governing the field of interpersonal relationships in the world horoscope:

1. People will be highly industrious in seeking out new interpersonal relationships with members of the opposite sex.

2. They will also spend a lot of time and effort pursuing these relationships.

3. If hurt in such a relationship, they will be very crafty in how to get even with the partner.

4. Relationships with the opposite sex will be more natural and comfortable than relationships with the same sex, because sex will be the underlying basis of most relationships. This does not preclude homosexual relationships.

5. Men's relationships will often be based in sports and competition. They will bond best in high-risk situations.

6. Relationships with elders will suffer due to the failure to honor elders.

7. Secret liaisons will be commonplace.

8. People will have the courage to fight for what they believe in, regardless of the worthiness of the issue at hand. This creates a dangerous situation with fundamentalists who have courage, even when they may lack true openness and tolerance for other's viewpoints.

9. Despite these defects, the end result of most relationships -- I'm not including marriage relationships -- will be positive. Most partners will be glad they entered into the relationship.

PSYCHOLOGIST: So this field of living in the world horoscope is reasonably okay?

EDWARD TARABILDA: This field of living comes under pressure through another field of living yet to be discussed -- wealth or primal desire nature.

PSYCHOLOGIST: How so?

EDWARD TARABILDA: Mars has a relationship to a weak Jupiter, which governs the field of wealth in the world horoscope. Jupiter promises more than it delivers in the desire for wife and family, and this disappointment places stress on interpersonal interactions.

PSYCHOLOGIST: I'm not sure I follow you.

EDWARD TARABILDA: It should become more clear after we do the dialogue relating to the field of primal desires or wealth, but what I'm suggesting is that relationships can become tense due to frustrations in one or both of the parties' desire natures. What these frustrations are likely to entail is best discussed in the dialogue relating to wealth.

Let us begin a new field of living tomorrow.