WHAT EVIDENCE VALIDATES INCARNATION TIMES?

The evidence that supports the validity of Incarnation times/INCARN horoscopes is found in the consistent and complete correspondence between well-known astrological traits/indicators and that which is actually observed and expressed by an individual. Without exception, there’s always an exact match of behavioral traits, physical appearance, life patterns, talents, reputation in the outer world, and timing of important life events.

This is especially true and most revealing in forecasts. When an Incarnation time and horoscope is accurate, forecasts involving the planets, aspects, signs, houses, and house cusps consistently, and without fail, match the nature and timing of all significant events that transpire every person’s life. Progressed orbs of these aspects almost always fall within less than seven minutes of arc (00° 07′) but have, on occasion, had a maximum orb of nine minutes (00° 09).

Another factor that substantiates the validity of Incarnation times is the Edgar Cayce readings. What Cayce stated in many of his readings and what John Willner verified empirically and independently over a period of 50 years is in total agreement.

Cayce didn’t just mention the importance of “spiritual birth times”. He gave warnings about confusions that often arise due to birth time differences by stating that the majority of horoscopes in current use were off by one to two Ascendant signs. He intimated that such charts lacked a fundamental basis (in their source and calculation) because they were not in sync with the spiritual moment of incarnation. This dilemma still persists today for about 99% of the horoscopes calculated, vis-a-vis physical birth times.

Below are some examples from the Edgar Cayce readings that highlight his admonitions:

EXAMPLE 1:

2. As to the time of birth, we have the completion of the present entity in the evening. This is not with reference to birth in the physical sense, for the taking of breath into the physical bodies all entities are not completed. With the mental, physical, spiritual and soul forces entities become complete. —2553-8

EXAMPLE 2:

5. In giving the interpretations of the records as we find them here, these we choose from the records upon time and space, as recorded in the mental and physical activities of the entity through those periods of sojourn in the earth as well as those realms of consciousness outside the physical body, which are termed astrological but have little to do with the common term of the astrological aspects. Though oft they are correct, more oft ye find them in variance. For most astrologers are nearly thirty degrees off in their reckoning in the present.—3376-2

EXAMPLE 3:

Hence the entity was born into the earth under what signs? Pisces, ye say. Yet astrologically from the records, these are some two signs off in thy reckoning.—5575-1

EXAMPLE 4:

As to the influences in the experience of this entity, we find that the astrological aspects may not be said to be altogether true to form, as might be indicated by some astrologers; for there would be quite a variation in the interpreting of the personality, the individuality, as well as that which is the experience of the entity in the present sojourn.—1900-1

EXAMPLE 5:

(Q) Give exact minute of physical birth, Feb. 11, 1911, to enable entity to ask for explanation of astrological laws governing entity.
(A) This, as we find, as the record has been made of same, is near right – to the second; and while at the entrance of the entity into the earth’s plane and the spiritual and physical birth varied little, there was the PHYSICAL under one sign and the SPIRITUAL under another! Hence the doubts that often arise, from an astrological view.—488-6

Notice the warnings Cayce mentioned in the above readings—about how most astrologers are “in variance”, “thirty degrees off”, “two signs off”, and “not true to form” with regard to the personality (Ascendant) in horoscope calculations.

Also, notice the last reading (488-6), in which he mentioned how ONE Ascendant sign was shown according to that individual’s physical birth time all the while it was ANOTHER Ascendant sign (based on the SPIRITUAL birth or Incarnation time) that actually matched that person’s true nature—and hence: the doubts that arise from an “astrological view” (physical birth time horoscope).

Cayce stated that interpretations from physical birth time horoscopes make for often confusing experiences for the individuals for whom they are cast. Why? Because, in many cases, they don’t reflect or synchronize with the Askashic records chosen by souls. There is often a mismatch in people’s true personalities, life experiences, and timing of significant life events. This is the reason why Cayce felt it necessary, on many occasions, to point out birth time differences between the physical and the spiritual. What would be the point of his mentioning “spiritual birth times” if physical birth times were the basis of astrological revelations?

Hence, Cayce’s assessment of astrologers was right back then and still is now! Ninety-nine percent of them base their conclusions on a physical birth time horoscope. That IS their “astrological view.”

In all fairness, many astrologers are not, or were not, privy to information about spiritual birth or Incarnation times, although that is slowly changing. Nor were they taught how and why they are so important.

Understandably, from their perspective, they might be wondering what on earth Cayce was talking about when he said “doubts that often arise, from an astrological view” as they relate to Ascendants. After all, calculating the physical birth time is a pretty straightforward process, and the Ascendant according to that time is unmistakable. But as the Cayce readings repeatedly stated, and as Incarnation time horoscopes have shown: Even when the correct physical birth time is obtained, it often produces an Ascendant that is still in error. And the reason is the wrong time basis was used.

By the way, doubts pertaining to the Ascendant would also arise if one is using the wrong zodiac system—which also has the positions of planets in the wrong signs. I am talking about the Sidereal zodiac. In regard to the Ascendant, it would amount to almost a 30-degree difference, which is in agreement with the average Ascendant difference between the physical birth and Incarnation time. However, the Sidereal zodiac would never explain those instances where there is a TWO Ascendant sign displacement (as mentioned in Edgar Cayce reading 5755-1 above). Only Incarnation times based on the Tropical Zodiac (and Placidus house system) ably explain such inconsistencies.

NEXT: WHY DO MOST ASTROLOGERS USE PHYSICAL BIRTH TIMES?