How much astrology is really necessary?

Hello Le Fanu,

you asked for a straight answer if you need to learn astrology. Well, you don't have to, but it helps a lot.

The good news is: you don't have to learn all of it. Just to have some idea about planets and how they behave in the different signs of the zodiac is mostly sufficient.

An Example:
Mars in Gemini. Gemini has - among other qualities - a lot of dexterity. Mars - seen as the god of war - always wants to break everything. So, if Mars acts in a play where the scene was set up by Gemini, it's putting a lot of dexterity and inventiveness into destroying everything. Hence: Cruelty. Finding the meanest way to do something. Using all means for a destructive end.

Mars in Leo. The same planet, but now he wants to shine, to be admired. Also the quality of not ever retreating. So, that's valour. The kind that gets your widow a medal.

Obviously you can do without that symbolism. But it makes playing with the cards a lot richer.

Just to be a bit cruel: learning hebrew writing makes it even more fun. I only just realized that.

Greetings
Nilkas

rif said:

What about the more modern GD material that does use the outer planets? Such as associating the mother letter trumps with outer planets. Is that something you disagree with as well? (That's a genuine question, so please don't interpret as argumentative.)

Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't use the outer planets. The funny thing is, I've sort of grown into this traditional astrology thing ass-backwards. If you'd asked me 4 years ago about it I would have just said, astrology was a useless, dated symbology because most of my experiences with it had been with the modern school. My research on the decans was like a thread on a BIG tapestry, the more I tugged, the more I understood the underlying logic and scope of the thing. So while I know that some folks get useful info out of the modern, outer planets, I've never seen anything to indicate their utility more than their non-utility. Tits on a boar hog, my family would say.

I still feel like I'm only getting the basics down, but I think I have the zeal of the converted a bit. I have zero patience with pop-psych, huggy, mushy mysticism these days. Drives me up a tree... in any kind of divination. I feel like everyone can learn to "feel good" about themselves on their own, but there's no reason to much up working traditions as a crutch to our egos. Once you've seen nuts-n-bolts predictive astrology at work it's hard to go back to the candy-floss version. LOL

rif said:

Didn't traditional astrologers also used to do natal astrology? Or are you just referring to the pointlessness you see in modern, post-Leo books?

Click to expand...

As you say, I'm referring more to the bizarre fixation on natal that moderns have. Me-me-me-me-me. As if astrology were some kind of truncated counseling program on which all your self-illusions are validated. Absolutely they did natal, but not with the same self-obsessed monofocus moderns do. Horary and elective are practical predictive techniques aka anathema to most modern sunsign astrology. You get results that you can prove definitively as wrong or right, again anathema to modern sunsign astrology. Natal is essential, but only as part of the larger discipline, and NOT as some kind of affirmational circle jerk. This is what used to make me so nuts about what I thought of as astrology: everyone was a genius... everyone was kind... everyone was talented... everyone was in fact exactly like everyone else. The thing is, that is manifestly not the case. Everything is not a matter of "believing in yourself." People don't come in 12 flavors like government-issue ice cream. And frankly, I know people like to talk about themselves, but why bother using celestial events to pat everyone on the back and tell them their ass doesn't look fat in those jeans?

rif said:

The main thing missing (for me) from Barclay's book is how to create a chart. Would you consider Barclay a self-sufficient book otherwise? I haven't spent too much time with Ms. Barclay yet. Between work and school, I know I can't do the book proper justice right now. It looks dense with info!

Click to expand...

You're right about the Barclay book... it does presuppose the basics and it's not as much of a textbook as it might be. I recommend it because she is less scary and ranty than a lot of other "traditional" folks. The trouble is, along with rejecting Alan Leo's theosophical "improvements" a lot of the traditional astrologers seem gunshy about what we might call user-friendly E-Z intros. Everyone seems to want us to eat our astrological spinach. And since a lot of them came at the traditional material AFTER working as sunsign astrologers they assume you already have the basics and kick you lovingly in Morin's and Lilly's direction.

In fact, Barclay uses the outer planets at times, which I find usless and anachronistic, but she is so gentle about easing people into the idea of predictive astrology and respectful of the tradition, that I kind of "forgive" her in an ideological sense... if that doesn't seem too crazy. Frawley is superb, but he really wants you to know your stuff. That said, Frawley's Textbook is more hands-on practical and much more clever, writingwise. It's literally a textbook and does a wonderful job of taking you into the practice. Geoffrey Cornelius' Moment of Astrology is a philosophical riff which barely teaches practical work at all. Weirdly enough there are 2 new translations of Al-Biruni's Book of Instruction which is slim and ferociously to the point though more of an overview and a set of tables. All of the ARHAT stuff is determinedly useful, but again, more like bricks in the wall than one self-sufficient text. Lehman's Classical Astrology for Modern Living or Crane's Practical Guide to Traditional Astrology each presuppose a certain amount of facility, the Lehman perhaps a little less. Crane's Astrological Roots is strictly Hellenistic, and I have to confess, I've seen the post-Arabic material work too well to ditch it completely. I'm also loving Bernadette Brady's Predictive Astrology: The Eagle And The Lark on my second read... but again not for a starting point. So (hell I've changed my mind again!) maybe Frawley's Horary Textbook is a better choice than Barclay, even if it's harder to find than the Barclay. Take a peek at the preview on Amazon.

You know it's funny, as I was answering Rif, I suddenly went back to Fanu's original question. I think the most powerful thing you can do with astrology is to grok the worldview which it presupposes. Rather than try to figure out dignities and receptions, what if you just focus at first on making internal sense of seeing the world through this set of astrologically aware eyes? It's a taller order than it might at first appear. C.S. Lewis (of all people) wrote a beautiful, tiny, CHEAP book called The Discarded Image which encapsulates the medieval worldview... the chain of being... the crystalline perfection and orderliness of the cosmos... the potency of elemental organization. Maybe, Fanu, that would be a nice place to start. Before you worry about courting the Queen of the Sciences directly, maybe just spend time ingesting the worldview and practice looking at the world through geocentric, neoPlatonic, Ptolemaic eyes. Does that make sense?

Ramble ramble ramble... I really apologize for going on like this. A subject near to my heart and constantly on my thoughts at the moment.

Scion said:

Before you worry about courting the Queen of the Sciences directly, maybe just spend time ingesting the worldview and practice looking at the world through geocentric, neoPlatonic, Ptolemaic eyes. Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

Totally

Neoplatonic. that's another word I see thrown around a lot nowadays reading about these magical people and things. So much, I feel like a I need to read about all the writings of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, all of their contemporaries, then read about the neoplatonic school.

Should I? how much does it lovingly relate to all this astrology and tarot?

You know what else I've been thinking. If horary astrology is so big and bad when it comes to predictions, why read tarot cards at all?

Ahhh, now there's a question!

I'd say that it's a bit like the old argument about stirring a martini or using a shaker. What's your poison and how thirsty are you? Both astrology and Tarot are based on a combination of tradition and individual talent. I imagine for lots of folks Tarot seems like a more user-friendly option: less math, pretty pictures. By the same token, maybe astrology seems more legitimate: more history, less conflict over interpretation. The truth is, divinatory Tarot is bound up in astrology for better or worse; Hell, Qabalah is bound up in astrology at its roots, but that's another topic. My own answer to the question is what gives you the best results? It's also a question of skillset; Tarot and astrology use related but distinct groups of symbolic "muscles" and produce different kinds of results in different hands... Sort of like climbing a hill and climbing a ladder: similar, but singular and they lead to a different kind of up, right? Both ups have their utility, but context is everything.

Maybe a better question is: what do you think divination is good for? How do you use it most effectively? What is the source of its power? If you're interested in a GREAT discussion of the way divination operates (by extension how Tarot and Horary are related and intermingled) check out Cornelius' Moment of Astrology. ( I know I keep recommending this book; I can't help it) It's ostensibly about the roots and praxis of astrology, but actually it's a kind of extended meditation on the origins and potential of divination, as well as the role of the divine. Great book.

As for Neoplatonism... you should definitely investigate if you're interested. It relates fundamentally to both traditions, and I can't think of anyone who'd disagree. Bob Place does a lovely job of summarizing a Neoplatonic origin theory in his Tarot book, but if you want something less biased... maybe Return to the One by Brian Hines or Pierre Hadot's Simplicity of Vision or John Deck's Nature, Contemplation, and the One ... all are focused on Plotinus but very articulate and provocative. Or a more pagan slant with Theurgy and the Soul which is Greg Shaw's book on Iamblichus. There's a strong Pythagorean thread in all this as well, so if you're also interested in the role of number in spiritual Platonism, I recommend the Waterfield translation of Pseudo-Iamblichus' Theology of Arithmetic which will blow your head open. Then if you get REALLY frisky, check out Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic by Peter Kingsley which can be a slog but is a fascinating look at the way Pythagoras & Empedocles lay the foundation for Western philosophy AND mysticism. Neoplatonism as a pervasive and persistent tradition. N.B. It's a massive topic and there's a lot of good accessible Neoplatonic material available. And there's a lot of overlap with gnosticism, mathematics, mysticism, theology, science, art, architecture, music etc... so be ready for everything you read to lead you in a thousand directions. But Plotinus and Iambilichus are a good place to start.

Re: the planets/signs and their interaction as it impacts upon the Thoth minors . . .

I think of the planet as the searchlight, and the sign as the lens. So if the lens is red, the light coming through is tinged with red. If the lens is Leo, the energy coming through is filtered through the qualities of Leo, which may moderate some qualities of the planet and may exacerbate others.

Is this a useful way to think of it, in the Thoth context, Scion?

\m/ Kat

That's so funny, Kat... I was gonna use the icing and icing gun metaphor, but your lens idea is much cleaner. I think a "focus" is a great way to describe it, at least as I understand it. And in much the same way, multiple lights create can create spill and interference and suprising interactions...

Divination is good for two things it seems to me. Answers, and knowing how you get those answers. All within the context of time and how elements change themselves and others. If you're purely concerned with answers, pay someone for them or use a guidebook every time you read tarot cards.

If you know how you get your answers, the answers make more sense to you, and you get a richer, fuller understanding of he whole situation. Right? Right.

There's many more ways than one to divinate, and it seems interesting to me that if Tarot is so based on astrology to the point where you have to learn astrology so deeply as to know all of its functions, it'd be odd not to do predictions with it itself. Or is that more astrology than is really necessary? If it is, why base any astrology on Tarot at all.

Less room for interpretation, leads to more straightforward answers doesn't it? Wouldn't also the charts constructed show us the interplay of all the elements within a situation that Elemental Dignities in a Thoth Tarot spread would? Or does Tarot with its symbols, card meanings and spread placements show us how we get to our destination (answer) more clearly?

Does any of what I just said about the pros and cons of astrology and tarot make sense to anyone? If it does, is it really just about taste, and the fact that pictures are easier for querents to look at, and cards are really cool to shuffle? If it is about taste, ok, let's pick and choose what we like and be syncretic about it all- that's what the golden dawn did. Isn''t that what the theosophists did as well, though? Try to synchronize? When is being syncretic dirty and when isn't it.. I"m rambling, and I'm sorry, I did my best to pertain all of my thoughts to this thread.

You're making sense and you're asking hard questions.

I think the syncretic impulse is strong in any esoterica. Nature of the Beast. And I do think it comes down to ability and predisposition. Most people who do cartomancy don't bother consciously with any of the stuff used to create the system they use. But then again, most people who use astrology, ditto. I always assume that the deeper you go, the more profound the result... but I'm sure there are folks who would say they'd rather NOT know. I feel like you get different results from different tools, even with the same question, so there's no way to compare them objectively. It's strictly reader by reader, case by case, querent by querent. What works? And there, the proof is in the results.

As I'm back to thinking about astrology, I went back to reread this thread as I'd remembered that Scion's & others' posts & questions here were massively helpful for me in beginning to understand where to go with astrology.

I have just ordered John Frawley's The Real Astrology. I'm taking this on my holidays with me to read, scribble in and get to grips with. I was going to get the Olivia Barclay book but, after Scion's observations, thought Frawley might be a more useful for me.

As there seem to be quite a few others setting out on the Thoth journey right now, I wonder where you all are with your astrology studies??