<evolutions
in astrology>
Tropical sun sign astrology originated in Mesopotamia in the 4th century
BC and, with the discoveries of Ptolemy, developed into a fixed star
system in Greece by around the 2nd century AD. On a practical level,
it was used to gauge the seasons by observing the moon and solstices
for agricultural purposes. Stories were written around the stars,
planets and signs of the zodiac depicting characters and energies
based on the mythology of gods and goddesses. This system is essentially
what we use today in our interpretations of astrology.
Given the precession of the equinoxes,
scientific discovery has found that the constellations are not as
fixed as we sometimes consider them to be in relation to Earth. Sidereal
astrology, which is what Vedic astrology is based on, follows this
movement. Tropical or sun sign astrology, which we mostly use here
in the West, does not. That's not to say that Tropical sun sign astrology
is irrelevant, for it seems still to hold much meaning for the many
people who practice and study it.
My
question is: how does this astronomical shift affect our readings
of astrology when using the Tropical method?
Is it that when the system of astrology was devised it created a template
of human experience that has been integrated into the collective psyche
to such a degree that we all still fit into these archetypes in the
present day and will continue to into the future, irrespective of
the correlation to the stars? And if so, does this mean that the astronomical
origins of astrology have become more or less irrelevant.
Or, perhaps the precession has not been great enough (only 24 degrees,
which is less than one sign) for the difference to be distinguishable?
And if so, what will we be the effect when it is more detectable?
Or is it that we blindly follow a psychological system, like a religion,
fitting theories into belief systems and shaping the outcome of our
lives around these beliefs, and vice versa?
I would like to suggest that the answer lies in a combination of the
above three factors. The ancients Greeks were very astute in creating
mythologies reflecting human nature. Astrology was created in a time
where much academic thought and respect were given to this discipline.
Astrology was found to be an ontology - a study of what it is to BE.
The template is strong… but it still shifts.
Secondly, given that the precession is only slight at this stage the
differences are not overly noticeable. Try deducting 24 degrees from
the signs of your planets and see how it relates to you personally.
Often, you will find that for example, your sun stays in the same
sign, just at an earlier degree. Also, because the signs of the zodiac
describe an evolution of energy and experience, the signs that fall
before and after a particular sign are quite sequential and therefore
have similarities. But in the future, when the difference may or may
not become more noticeable, perhaps we need to adjust our planets
in signs with the mathematics that are available. Just like the conversion
charts for rickshaw fares in India - if you don’t ask, you won't
get the correct information and you will be ripped off, over and over
again.
And lastly, I believe that we as humans are little else than a hunk
of flesh without our thoughts. We define ourselves by our consciousness.
The Cartesian 'I think therefore I am' reflects the importance we
place on our mental faculties. Thoughts, words, dreams - the essence
of human life revolves around our minds, as well as our hearts, but
it is these mental faculties that dominate our experience of life
and the experience of being ourselves. We can convince ourselves of
anything really. Which leads me back to the origins of my own sense
of what astrology is - a universal language that transcends space
and time and one that we can adapt, in this holographic
existence, to our own interpretations of what it is to be.
bunny
star 2004©