Sign in to follow this  
Fate

New Age...Astrology... no longer based on the Sky?

Recommended Posts

So I've recently come to discover that due to cosmic rotations, all of our astrology is completely out of date.


So we're not in Leo, and the New Age isn't Aquarius it is actually Capricorn?

 

I'm here to get a larger opinion base, it doesn't seem like something so clear and precise could be based on falsehoods. I've refrained from sharing this discovery with my friends who still use their horoscopes and star charts to understand and map their lives, but that's more because I want to understand what's going on below the surface.


I know my sign-Cancer had a lot of truths that resonated with me, especially as a contrast to my  brother's sign Leo. Our 'planets' were the Moon and Sun respectively, and it is just a perfect representation of our dynamic and respective personas.

 

Very interested in what long-term esoteric practitioners have to say about this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fate,

 

It's good that noticed this and even better that you raise the question. It demonstrates the courage to think critically when the naked emperor comes waltzing by. 

 

You are referring to the precession of the equinoxes, the consequence of a 26,000 year cycle in which the relative positions of the stars gradually shift in the night sky. Astrology, as understood popularly, can indeed to be viewed to be incorrect or even blatantly disproven on these grounds. 

 

However, what is not popularly understood is the astrological concept that the zodiacal "energies" are not a consequence of the stars themselves, but of the angle of the earth both relative to the sun, planets, and the path of its own rotation in our solar system. In other words, the stars were simply a convenient way (in fact, the only way) to record the position of man on the ground at the time that astrology began to be studied. The markers may have moved, but the areas of energetic influence remain unchanged.

 

Taken from this viewpoint, while the precession of the equinoxes may be the outer manifestation of some greater cycle for mankind as a whole, it has no other bearing on astrological interpretation.

 

I believe this is a reasonable summary of the esoteric answer to your question. However, this should not be interpreted as my own personal viewpoint. I personally believe that the reality which lies behind astrology is much different than the average occultist or astrologer believes.

 

Best,

UFA

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, that does clear some things up. Puts it into better terms what was floating around my mind, the idea of energetic patterns in one's life etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The zodiac is the annual course of the Sun (the ecliptic) divided into twelve equal sectors. Of course, nowadays we know that it is in fact the Earth orbit.

 

The reason for the twelve-fold division ties in with Numerology and Sacred Geometry. It is demonstrated by the faster moving Moon (the Yin) coming full circle and catching up again with the Sun (the Yang) usually twelve times in a year. Which the concept of the twelve months is derived from.

 

Mind you that the star constellations on the ecliptic are neither exactly twelve in number nor do they exactly measure 30¬į each. Some are considerably bigger or smaller; thus there are gaps and overlaps. So it's apt to say that the constellations were only used as markers and name-givers for the signs. Perhaps it was even the other way around, and the constellations were named after the signs that they roughly coincide with...

 

The principal pivots for the zodiac however are the equinoxes and solstices that again characterize the relationship between the Sun and the Earth - which never changes throughout the aeons.

Edited by Michael Sternbach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've recently come to discover that due to cosmic rotations, all of our astrology is completely out of date.

 

 

 

Not really, not 'cosmic rotations', its a 'wobble' in the axial rotation of the Earth. Imagine a spinning top, as it slows down the point at the top starts to 'drop' and move in a circle, that is like the rotation of the celestial pole. The edge of the spinning top will tilt over towards the surface it is spinning on and that point will cicrculate around the tops movement, even thgough it is still spinning fast and any point on the top will be rotating quickly, the apparent point of where the top's edge is closest to the surface will prescribe a circle moving at a much slower speed. That is similar to the eqinoctal point (EP) rotating through the heavens along the path of the ecliptic.

 

It, the EP, is heading towards the constellation of Aquarius .

 

 

 

 

So we're not in Leo, and the New Age isn't Aquarius it is actually Capricorn?

 

The modern terms are fairly meaningless, and only have 'meaning' within the context of pop astrology, so its hard to give a good answer to such questions.

 

Eg. 'We' are not in Leo .... the Sun is in the sign of Leo, so astrologically, that is correct, but the Sun's location in astronomical space will be in a constellation and be mapped by an astonomical chart. not an astrological one.

 

The Sun , like the Conscious Rational Ego, has taken more focus nowadays, like the silly daily asto charts ..... what's your sign ? etrc, all relate to the Sun and leave out the very other importrant astological aspects.

 

However, many other types of astrology ( Indian, Tibetan, and others) and ancient 'astronomy' ( Australian Aboriginal ) are based on a 'real' position (in relation to the stars)

 

So , the 'Age of Aquarius' is when the northern EP is moving into an through Aquarius .... it has some time yet to go before it gets there. This is the movement that makes sidereal ( stella positional) astrology and tropical astrology ( 12 equal 30 degree segements marked from the beginning of the moving EP - regardless of where it is or the stars postions ) not match up , so it cant change the 'ages' to sideral, as they alreday where sideral (based on stars positions)

 

IMO it is amusing thaqt people that insist on using a tropical system can sprout about the significance of the Age of Aquarius - it seems an apples an oranges thing.

 

 

 

 

I'm here to get a larger opinion base, it doesn't seem like something so clear and precise could be based on falsehoods.

 

No, its based on observations and ease of calculation with equal signs / houses , the number 12 and its 3:4 dynamic. If anything, modern astrology has become corrupt by giving overt foucus to the Sun in the natal chart. This used to roughly match up with the stella map (as it was known) around the time the 'tropical' tables where written up, that is; The Sun would have been in the sign of Cancer and the constellation of cancer at the same time ... roughly .

 

Remeber that signs are geometrical constructs and constellations have changed over time as evidenced by the old star maps, when we look at an astronomical map today, the constellational boundaries are not something that makes any sense astrologically; a boundary will take off , out to a star, do 2 90 degree turns around it and come back, linking a star by a narrrow constellational boundary corridor .... so it all seems very arbitrary (or done for non-astonomical reasons ) .... abetter approach seems to use the asterisms themselves .... but what about the sometimes 'void' space between them ?  eg;

 

asterism;

 

 

 

 

 

Constellations outlined by green line, asterisms linked by white line;

 

ara.gif

 

  A system can be nutted out where they match fairly good, considering 'recent' changes in the map that can be undone ... but a bit too much to go into here.

 

 

I've refrained from sharing this discovery with my friends who still use their horoscopes and star charts to understand and map their lives, but that's more because I want to understand what's going on below the surface.

 

There are two types of astrology ( I use the term widely - that is over time and location ... not just our modern localised view)

 

One is based on the seasons and contains knowledge for hunting, foraging, basic survival. So that works well by basing a system on the Sun and the seasons and observing the EP.

 

The other seems more based on the stars and 'mythology' and shows a journey of initiation / individuation (although in older socities both must be linked in some ways )

 

I have a system where the tropical astrology defines our outer side ( mundane world, what people expect of us, how we are supoposed to behave etc  ) and the sidereal defines a more individual and personal or perhaps spiritual side of our  personal evolution.

 

In relation to this ;

 

 

 

I know my sign-Cancer had a lot of truths that resonated with me, especially as a contrast to my brother's sign Leo. Our 'planets' were the Moon and Sun respectively, and it is just a perfect representation of our dynamic and respective personas.

 Not clear wether Cancer is your tropical or sidereal ?  I am tropical Cancer .... but a sideral Gemini  ( I will let you decide what fits best ;) ) .

 

But remember, it just isnt your sun that changes location, its the whole chart, so although some insist I do have Cancerian traits, the sidereal shift has moved my Leo Moon into Cancer, that is where the Cancer energy is they detect ... and so on.

 

IMO a more significant infuelnce in achrat is the  angular relationship between planets, and this doesnt change ... aslo the ruling planet and theme of a chart does not change .... so, taking the modern propensity to give Sol such focus, the changes may not be as drastic as one might think .... its more like different ways of applying the same formula.

 

 

 

Very interested in what long-term esoteric practitioners have to say about this

 

 

There are some good articles on it here ....   Robert hand is quiet good   (and it has free chart constructing software

 

http://www.astro.com/

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fate,

 

It's good that noticed this and even better that you raise the question. It demonstrates the courage to think critically when the naked emperor comes waltzing by. 

 

You are referring to the precession of the equinoxes, the consequence of a 26,000 year cycle in which the relative positions of the stars gradually shift in the night sky. Astrology, as understood popularly, can indeed to be viewed to be incorrect or even blatantly disproven on these grounds. 

 

 

That is usually done by astonomers, or other scientists that seem to be criticisming a subject they dont understand ... or criticising modern pop astrology ..... I will do the 2nd as well.

 

However, what is not popularly understood is the astrological concept that the zodiacal "energies" are not a consequence of the stars themselves, but of the angle of the earth both relative to the sun, planets, and the path of its own rotation in our solar system. In other words, the stars were simply a convenient way (in fact, the only way) to record the position of man on the ground at the time that astrology began to be studied. The markers may have moved, but the areas of energetic influence remain unchanged.

 

If I am reading this right .... I totally disagree with you.  

 

I can show that stars themselves, even as individual units aside from constellations were considered to have such influence

 

here is a starter;    http://www.constellationsofwords.com/stars/Stars_alphabet.htm

 

However, I may have compleatly misunderstood you ?  .....  What does this mean :   "The markers may have moved, but the areas of energetic influence remain unchanged. "  ?

 

 

Taken from this viewpoint, while the precession of the equinoxes may be the outer manifestation of some greater cycle for mankind as a whole, it has no other bearing on astrological interpretation.

 

I disagree, it certainly has if one wants to use a sideral system .... or observe that modern tropical western astrology (especially the newsapaper variety)  does indeed appear to be wearing not much at all

 

whatnaked.gif

 

I believe this is a reasonable summary of the esoteric answer to your question. However, this should not be interpreted as my own personal viewpoint. I personally believe that the reality which lies behind astrology is much different than the average occultist or astrologer believes.

 

Best,

UFA

 

 

Curious, as I thought some of the more unusual ideas you presented must be your own ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The modern terms are fairly meaningless, and only have 'meaning' within the context of pop astrology, so its hard to give a good answer to such questions.

Eg. 'We' are not in Leo .... the Sun is in the sign of Leo, so astrologically, that is correct, but the Sun's location in astronomical space will be in a constellation and be mapped by an astonomical chart. not an astrological one.

The Sun , like the Conscious Rational Ego, has taken more focus nowadays, like the silly daily asto charts ..... what's your sign ? etrc, all relate to the Sun and leave out the very other importrant astological aspects.

 

I strongly agree with this. As an astrologer, so many times I have a conversation like this: "She's an Aries, so she must be active all the time!" I go: "No, she loves to take a nap during the day." "What's that?!" "Moon in Pisces." "Huh? Never heard of that..."

 

The Sun is the most radiant influence of the chart, but there is so much more involved, otherwise there would only be twelve different kinds of people...

 

However, many other types of astrology ( Indian, Tibetan, and others) and ancient 'astronomy' ( Australian Aboriginal ) are based on a 'real' position (in relation to the stars)

So , the 'Age of Aquarius' is when the northern EP is moving into an through Aquarius .... it has some time yet to go before it gets there.

 

OR it's already there. That depends on where you draw the line between Pisces and Aquarius constellations.

 

There is a similar problem regarding the kinds of sidereal astrology you mention, as different schools have defined different placements for 0¬į Aries relative to the stars, whereas the zodiac is always divided into twelve equal sectors; so it's actually quite abstract.

 

This is the movement that makes sidereal ( stella positional) astrology and tropical astrology ( 12 equal 30 degree segements marked from the beginning of the moving EP - regardless of where it is or the stars postions ) not match up , so it cant change the 'ages' to sideral, as they alreday where sideral (based on stars positions)

IMO it is amusing thaqt people that insist on using a tropical system can sprout about the significance of the Age of Aquarius - it seems an apples an oranges thing.

 

Unless one accepts that there could be more than one frame of reference - which I do, although I am primarily a tropical astrologer. "As above so below" means that everything "up there" has a parallel "down here".

 

Btw, there are also astrologers who consider the precession of the EP to proceed in regular epochs of 30¬į spatially and 2160 years temporally.

 

No, its based on observations and ease of calculation with equal signs / houses , the number 12 and its 3:4 dynamic. If anything, modern astrology has become corrupt by giving overt foucus to the Sun in the natal chart. This used to roughly match up with the stella map (as it was known) around the time the 'tropical' tables where written up, that is; The Sun would have been in the sign of Cancer and the constellation of cancer at the same time ... roughly .

Remeber that signs are geometrical constructs and constellations have changed over time as evidenced by the old star maps, when we look at an astronomical map today, the constellational boundaries are not something that makes any sense astrologically; a boundary will take off , out to a star, do 2 90 degree turns around it and come back, linking a star by a narrrow constellational boundary corridor .... so it all seems very arbitrary (or done for non-astonomical reasons ) .... abetter approach seems to use the asterisms themselves .... but what about the sometimes 'void' space between them ?  eg;

asterism;

Constellations outlined by green line, asterisms linked by white line;ara.gif

  A system can be nutted out where they match fairly good, considering 'recent' changes in the map that can be undone ... but a bit too much to go into here.

 

Yes, there is also the difference between constellations and asterisms, just to spice things up further.

 

There are two types of astrology ( I use the term widely - that is over time and location ... not just our modern localised view)

 

One is based on the seasons and contains knowledge for hunting, foraging, basic survival. So that works well by basing a system on the Sun and the seasons and observing the EP.

 

The other seems more based on the stars and 'mythology' and shows a journey of initiation / individuation (although in older socities both must be linked in some ways )

 

Tropical astrology is also quite individualistic/spiritual though.

 

I have a system where the tropical astrology defines our outer side ( mundane world, what people expect of us, how we are supoposed to behave etc  ) and the sidereal defines a more individual and personal or perhaps spiritual side of our  personal evolution.

 

I'm not suite sure yet what the two different levels are supposed to represent exactly, although I am open to ideas. Instead of employing sidereal signs, I limit myself to tropical signs, but I do consider individual fixed stars in conjunction or opposition to planets or angles. That is often very conclusive.

 

In relation to this ;

 

Not clear wether Cancer is your tropical or sidereal ?  I am tropical Cancer .... but a sideral Gemini  ( I will let you decide what fits best ;) ) .

 

But remember, it just isnt your sun that changes location, its the whole chart, so although some insist I do have Cancerian traits, the sidereal shift has moved my Leo Moon into Cancer, that is where the Cancer energy is they detect ... and so on.

 

IMO a more significant infuelnce in achrat is the  angular relationship between planets, and this doesnt change ... aslo the ruling planet and theme of a chart does not change ....

 

Yes, if by "ruling planet", you mean a planet at the ASC or MC. More often, the term is used for the Lord of the sign at the ASC (if it were Sagittarius, its ruler Jupiter would be considered rather important in the chart), which does change depending on the kind of zodiac you use.

 

so, taking the modern propensity to give Sol such focus, the changes may not be as drastic as one might think .... its more like different ways of applying the same formula.

 

There are some good articles on it here ....   Robert hand is quiet good   (and it has free chart constructing software

 

http://www.astro.com/

 

Yes, pretty good stuff there, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is usually done by astonomers, or other scientists that seem to be criticisming a subject they dont understand ... or criticising modern pop astrology ..... I will do the 2nd as well.

 

I didn't bother. I have no interest in pop astrology, not even in dismantling it.

 

If I am reading this right .... I totally disagree with you.  

 

I can show that stars themselves, even as individual units aside from constellations were considered to have such influence

 

here is a starter;    http://www.constellationsofwords.com/stars/Stars_alphabet.htm

 

I absolutely agree that many consider the fixed stars to have specific influences. That is an exoteric belief, not an esoteric one.

 

However, I may have compleatly misunderstood you ?  .....  What does this mean :   "The markers may have moved, but the areas of energetic influence remain unchanged. "  ?

 

The viewpoint that I described is that the zodiacal influences were not from the stars themselves, but a result of the angle formed between the earth, sun, and earth's orbit around the sun.

 

Curious, as I thought some of the more unusual ideas you presented must be your own ?

 

Nope. Those are not my own ideas.

 

I propose that almost all of astrology is utter bunk beyond the utility it serves as a psychological mirror, a medium for story telling and a framework for mystical thought. I believe that there are some interesting and potentially provable correlations between the sun, moon, horizon and their transits with natural phenomena but I have seen nothing so far which suggests causality. I also believe the the study and development of astrology played an important role in the historical development of human consciousness, but this role has been supplanted by science and technology, which now captures the attention of modern men.

 

So I go on record as a curious example of a modern alchemist who holds that astrology plays no role of importance in the Work.

 

Best,

UFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still dont get ; "  but a result of the angle formed between the earth, sun, and earth's orbit around the sun. "

 

An angle needs 3 referance points if one is the Sun, good ... another the Earth, good - they are both 'points' but the third. being 'the earth's orbit around the Sun' is not a point but a line , so   ...    ???

 

 

However I can see some of what you say (again if I read you right ) in that, a seasonal time on earth could be marked by a stars rising, then those season qualities can be given to that star.  This makes perfect sense.

 

Except ... some of the stories that are not about the seasons, but about 'psychological process' (individuation / initiation ) ' embedded' in the stars have similarities between cultures with no contact ever and in differnt hemispheres.

 

Very curious that one !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except ... some of the stories that are not about the seasons, but about 'psychological process' (individuation / initiation ) ' embedded' in the stars have similarities between cultures with no contact ever and in differnt hemispheres.

 

Very curious that one !

 

Actually, I find the notion of celestial bodies having their own distinct intelligences (which can be explored mystically) to be plausible from an esoteric standpoint. But this takes us far beyond modern astrology, which is what I was directing my comments at.

 

 

I still dont get ; "  but a result of the angle formed between the earth, sun, and earth's orbit around the sun. "

 

An angle needs 3 referance points if one is the Sun, good ... another the Earth, good - they are both 'points' but the third. being 'the earth's orbit around the Sun' is not a point but a line , so   ...    ???

 

 

However I can see some of what you say (again if I read you right ) in that, a seasonal time on earth could be marked by a stars rising, then those season qualities can be given to that star.  This makes perfect sense.

 

I'm apparently not stating it very well but am working on some other things at the moment and don't have time to dig up my references which would probably explain it to your satisfaction.

 

Essentially however, the position of the stars have a consistent relationship with the ecliptic and celestial equators as the earth travels around the sun. And though the position of the stars relative to these two planes slowly changes over time, this theory holds that the stars themselves have little influence relative to the the sun and planetary bodies and that the alleged astrological effects result from the angle at which the planetary astral energies strike the earth, rather than the stars themselves. Thus, precession of the equinoxes is explained away as being a mere changing of the "sky markers".

 

Again, this is not my theory. I personally believe that modern astrology is largely BS and that ideas like these spring from an apologist attitude which tries to explain old theories using pseudo-science, completely ignoring the fact that astrology has very little empirical support.

 

UFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of problems with new age astrology. Like the concept of rulership, reception, or antiscia. It's also backwards - you were supposed to practice horary first. Alan Leo is at fault for corrupting astrology in the first place. If you look at sources like William Lily or Abraham ibn Ezra, you see a piece of what astrology in the West was supposed to be like. Not that psychological bullcrap that we see nowadays.

Edited by Kaspar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am under the impression that we are still in the Age of Aquarius, since previously we were in the Piscean Age. Plus if you look at the world and how we operate it looks very Aquarian. Capricorn comes after Aquarius and Leo after Capricorn.

 

Keep in mind that Capricorn is a dark sign, which means things may get darker....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressions can be misleading. 

 

What do you mean  " Capricorn comes after Aquarius and Leo after Capricorn."    ? ? ?  In a paragraph about 'astrological ages'  ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this