CONTENTS==PREVIOUS==NEXT==HOME
CHAPTER II :: MUSINGS: ASTROLOGICAL POTPOURRI
The entire body of astrological knowledge that we possess today is as complex, variable and on occasion even internally inconsistent and contradictory, as the human society itself. We follow two different types of zodiac, variable number of planets and other heavenly bodies and points, multiple systems for timing of events, precessional corrections and house systems. While each house system can be mathematically validated, rationalized and justified, in our quest for order and mathematical precision we forget that the origin, the infrastructure that this is based on is tenuous and highly symbolic at best. Given the 360 degrees of ecliptic, we do not know why our forefathers divided the ecliptic belt into 12 signs (judging from the lack of sharp demarcations between the constellations, as we peer up in dark, the number of signs could easily have been more or less)? And why were those signs assumed to be of equal dimensions (at least originally!)? And, amazingly, why were those signs represented by the same symbols and attributes through different cultures? Given the enormous diversity of astrological approaches and techniques used by different cultures of the world, any hypotheses of a single origin for astrology do not sit very well with me! If it were so, there would have to be more conceptual and operational similarities between the systems, we know this is not so. We only have to look at the differences in the precession, the role of aspects and other rules of operation between the tropical and the sidereal schools, for instance. It seems reasonable that the concept of 12 houses sprang from the almost universally accepted division of the zodiac into 12 signs, a very arbitrary, highly empirical and symbolic paradigm at best. THAT THE PARADIGM 'WORKS' DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ABSOLVE IT FROM ITS SYMBOLIC OR EMPIRICAL NATURE. Astrology and psychology seem to have one thing in common. Anyone and everyone feels justified in having an opinion about it or even at trying one's hand at these two without spending the time and effort required to master the basics. They would not dare do that with Physics or medicine! We all know at least one or more 'party-astrologer' or 'psychologist'. It is this 'entertainment' aspect of these soft sciences (admittedly the label is more true in the case of astrology than for psychology, the psychologists amongst us may now unclench their fists and relax their massaters and take deeep breaths, please!) that stays uppermost in people's minds. And astrologers of 'repute' writing SUN-SIGN and MOON-SIGN columns for news papers do little to dispel the myths surrounding the noble craft. Astrology shares the diversity of approaches and techniques prevalent in psychology and this is often used as ammunition against astrology by sceptics. How can one set of astrologers following a zodiac that is almost a sign behind that used by others reach similar conclusions? How can the siderealists reconcile with the numerous values suggested and utilized for precessional corrections? The list of seemingly mind-boggling arguments goes on. Why are there so many house divisions, all of which collapse at the poles anyway? How can I be influenced by a distant planet like saturn more powerfully than by mercury which is closer? What are these cosmic radiations that some astrologers keep bringing up when attempting to explain how astrology works? Why can the scientists not measure these? Well scientists could not detect sub-atomic particles a century or so ago. That did not mean that those did not exist then! We astrologers are having enough trouble deciding on which rules and techniques seem to work in deciphering a chart, let alone coming up with a unified theory explaining the modus operandi of astrological influences! Perhaps astrolgers should not try too hard to explain why astrology works, but focus for now on showing the world that it works. In a sense similar to the way that modern medicine made inroads into our society, initially. Every conscientious and serious-minded astrologer is an empirical scientist. We learn the rules, apply them, accept and reapply the ones that work while mentally rejecting those that do not work. After several years of doing this, each of us accumulates a data-base of anecdotal evidence (usually unrecorded other than in our brains, unfortunately). What we need is to pool all these into a common school of astrological thought. Having said so, I realize that it is very hard to be open-minded about something that is so very different from one's usual approach and it is more convenient (did I mean 'lazy') to ignore that other view-point and continue within one's accepted and partially-tested frame of reference. I see that all the time when trying to submit articles on vedic astrology to main-stream astrological magazines. But progress rarely travels along paved roads! A major difference that I see between approaches adopted by followers of the tropical (loosely speaking, western astrology, including cosmobiology) from those following the vedic system lies in the use of 'aspects'. By emphasizing and elaborating on planetary effects caused by interplanetary arcs and developing it to near-perfection over years, the western astrologer has, to a significant extent, factored out the effect of precession! The vedic astrologer does consider aspects but in a very different way by using only the opposition (all planets), trines (jupiter), square (mars and saturn), sextile (saturn) and quincunx (mars). Other aspects are recommended during strength determination (planets and houses) but hardly anyone gives those a serious consideration in practice. Also, the aspects themselves are neither good nor bad but simply indicate a channel or link which connects the aspecting and the aspected body, blending their effects together. The quality of the aspect depends on the intrinsic nature and rulership (+ or - houses) and the relationship between the planets involved. In other words, some squares (mars to saturn) signify challenges, while others (Jupiter to moon) indicate the opposite. Some researchers (astrologers and others) have given "too much" emphasis to sun signs and moon signs in trying to correlate things such as one's vocation and the influence on it of one's sunsign while totally ignoring the good old tenth house! This tendency 'to select one out of several indicators in formulating a conclusion or prediction' is often seen in impatient neophytes, a tendency which is soon corrected by a few years of practice and red-faced failures. And, such an approach is tricky! Eysenck and Nias in their book "Astrology: Science or superstition?", a generally even-keeled critique and exploration of astrology and cosmobiology, quotes a study by Van Deusen where marginal correlations between sun-signs and certain professions were reported. A logical question arises in ones mind (which I have already conveyed to Profs. Eysenck and Nias). In instances where the sunsign was correlated with a certain occupation, was the sunsign also related with the 10th house, its lord or significators? And in those instances where the sunsign did not seem to jive with the expected vocation, was there a lack of link between the sunsign and the tenth house? Unfortunately this analysis was not carried out or reported. Eysenck et al often remarked in their book on the poor choice of statistical technique used by most astrological researchers. The above study, in my opinion, reflects poor design as well, for not having taken into account all relevent factors. These days with all the computerized help that is available for calculating charts and maintaining research databases, we no longer are left with any excuses for shying away from multifactorial, multivariate analyses of astrological data. And that is what our old supercomputer (the walnut between our ears) had been doing all along when we analyze a chart. When we examine a chart, we usually take several factors into account and do not jump to a conclusion on seeing a single planetary indication. We have no choice but to adopt the same approach when carrying out research. A lot of myths surround statistics. I would perhaps not be wrong in saying that any astrologer who can erect a chart has the necessary math skills to delve fairly deeply in statistics. While not perfect, statistics when used with care can show us real trends and we must make an attempt to learn and apply those in our research. The mental effort and change of attitude regarding use of statistics could only help elevate the status of astrology as it did for psychology. Personal databases (mostly existing in one's head or on indecipherable scraps of note paper), individual anecdotal experiences and impressions work well for the individual astrologer but in the end it is wasteful since the knowledge goes away with the person or can be passed on to only a few. A well-recorded diary of astrological rules that work (and WHYs if possible) even if unpublished has a longer life and potential usefulness than hundred times as much information locked away in one's memory centers. While the usefulness of astrological advice given in a face-to-face situation is great, any such encounter is more likely to bring into play non-astrological faculties. These might range from non-verbal (or verbal) cues, one's intuition and other recognized and unrecognized psychic abilities and depending on the astrologer's personality, adds a certain amount of psychotherapeutic coloration to the consult. Several astrologers recognize this and believe that this enhances the value of such a session. Perhaps, but this does nothing to clarify or elevate the status of astrology. If the client wants therapy, let him/her go to a trained therapist. If sympathy and a shoulder to cry on is what the client really needs, let them approach their friends. Cruel as it might seem, the astrologer need not be any of those, all the time. We must work exclusively from the charts erected for the birth or query time or other suitable epochs. Going a step further, I personally prefer taped or written reports with no face-to-face contact. I visualize a lot of astrologers shaking their heads in dissent at that statement, but I feel this is the only way for one to test the validity of astrology. Armed with only the chart (not even a photograph of the client), we have no recourse but to use only astrological indicators to prepare our reports. On the one hand this relieves us from the undesired pressures of responding to non-astrological cues, and on the other hand it improves our motivation to be extra careful when weighing several astrological indicators and factors in reaching a conclusion. This is vitally important in the beginning when one is trying to absorb the new rules of interpretation. All students of astrology should try this approach, despite initial failures. Eventually, this would give them a new confidence in the ability of astrology and in their own in interpreting a chart, things which cannot be acquired merely from reading hundreds of books, taking and passing courses and examinations or doing retrospective chart analyses, ALL OF WHICH ARE UNDENIABLY ESSENTIAL IN THE MAKING OF A GOOD ASTROLOGER. While I am thus rambling on, I am perhaps ignoring a small cohort (and not an entire block of astrologers, as held by some, based on their different style of astrological methodology!) of astrologers, who, perhaps unknown to even themselves, use the horoscope as a launching board for psychic impressions regarding a client and have always attributed astrology as the reason for their successful predictions and interpretations. These individuals fall in a separate category. They are 'psychics', not astrologers, and I am not implying by this that one is better or worse than the other in the order of things. These rare 'sensitive' individuals need sensory cues and a vis-a-vis session would perhaps be more productive for them. One must recognize the category one falls into for oneself and adopt the appropriate approach. Unfortunately, the contributions made by such gifted people would do little to promote the general status of astrological knowledge, since their methods cannot readily be transmitted to and implemented by other astrologers for their use. Most of us would have to fall back on and benefit from the meticulously kept data and analyses by the likes of Gauquelins and other similar astrologers.
©Copyrighted by Crystal Pages (1995)
CONTENTS==PREVIOUS==NEXT==HOME