Part of the reality of doing astrology today – there is no one astrology anymore, no single recognized set of rules, standards and meanings that all of us subscribe to.
There seem to be a lot of realities out there these days.
Part of spiritual maturity is realizing that there is no one neat and simple set of rules as to exactly what reality is – like it or not we are limited to our own perception, our own understanding, our own worldview – like having a lens surgically implanted into your eye so that you filter out anything that does not match the shape of that lens.
I practice mostly traditional astrology, I think, and by now I’ve got some pretty strong opinions as to the meanings of the planets, signs, houses, and other core concepts of our astrological world. At the same time I am aware of the work of other astrologers, whose work I respect and who seem to be getting good and useful results, who are using techniques and meanings that would be ‘just plain wrong’ if I attempted to transpose them into my own astrology model.
I’ll use specific names here – it helps flesh out the core of what I’m getting at.
I’ve read a couple of books by the Evolutionary Astrologer Mark Jones, and I admire his work. As I mentioned in my previous post on how the sign Aquarius has changed meaning over the last few centuries, Jones interprets Aquarius, the Eleventh house, and the planet Uranus, all as markers for trauma in the chart. As far as I can tell, Jones got that from his teacher, Jeff Green, and there really is no historical precedent prior to that for making any association between Aquarius and trauma, or the eleventh house and trauma.
So for me, I look at that association and think, No, that makes no sense within my model.
Does that mean I think that Mark Jones’ model of the world is wrong or inferior or invalid? No, I do not – as I mentioned, I have read his two books with pleasure, and it is extremely interesting and enjoyable to me to attempt to immerse myself in his worldview, and attempt to look out at the world with his set of lenses rather than my own usual set.
If I wish to respect Mark Jones as astrologer, I have to grant that his model of that world has validity, even where its rules differ from mine.
I reverence astrology, I think it is a sacred discipline, and I do my best to understand and use it. However, I have to remind myself that what I have is a model of astrology, and no more, and that my model is limited by my own point of view and experience.
No human model of the world is ever completely adequate and all inclusive.
One of the most dangerous situations spiritually, in astrology, is to think that you have found The Truth, with capital letters. It is a special kind of arrogance masquerading as dedication to preserving that Truth.
Especially dangerous is thinking your particular moral judgements are hard-wired into the structure of the Universe itself, delivered straight from the mouth and hand of God.
I think that recognizing multiple worldviews that humans use to frame their experience is part of the reality of being human, and I think it is especially important to us now, when we are surrounded with a superabundance of different models and systems of astrology. We need to be able to respect the validity of someone else’s system within their model, even when we think it is ‘wrong’ from within the constraints of our own model.
Last I checked, when an astrology consultation happens, I don’t think the Gods of astrology check to make sure the astrologer has read the right books or studied with the right teacher. I think the Gods are hip and aware enough to use whatever model the astrologer happens to use, and speak in the terms of that model.
I do not think all astrologers are equally good at their craft; I think there are some very good ones, and some very awful ones out there today. Still, I think the Gods of astrology do the very best they can to convey their message with whatever vessel they have to work with.
My job is to polish and clear my own personal set of astrological lenses, and not to pass judgements on anyone else’s lenses.