1

The Two-Zodiac Problem Toward an Empathic Understanding By Glenn Perry And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years…” And it was so. ~Genesis I:14-15 Author’s Note: The following is a verbatim transcript of a talk I gave at the IVC India Conference in Kolkata, India, on February 2, 2018. The lecture was a summation of ideas developed more fully in an article published in Constellation News, edited by Sri Gopal Bhattacharjee. For discussion of the controversy surrounding the lecture, click: Are We Free to Discuss Astrology’s Real Problems?

As you can see, I’ve chosen to start my talk with a cartoon depicting an elephant seeking therapy for his plight of not being acknowledged. The elephant in the room generally symbolizes a difficult topic we try to avoid, perhaps out of politeness, or simply because it’s a problem for which we have no solution. Clearly, the elephant in the room at this historic conference where east meets west is that anxiety ridden question: can two zodiacs co-exist without contradiction―or, is one zodiac correct and the other wrong?

2

As we all know, astrology originated with the zodiac, which like a cosmic womb is the source for everything that follows. But, we also know that our field is currently divided by two different zodiacs, tropical and sidereal, each of which claim parentage of the same child―astrology itself. The situation is not unlike the story from the Hebrew Bible in which two women living in the same house both claim to be mother of a child. It fell upon King Solomon to make a judgment as to who was the true mother. Our Solomonic problem, if I can call it that, derives from contradictory ways of defining the zodiac. The tropical zodiac is defined by the seasons and is disconnected from the stars as a frame of reference, whereas the sidereal zodiac is defined by the stars and is disconnected from the seasons as a frame of reference.

Zodiac is a 16° Band Around the Sun Both zodiacs use a 30-degree, 12-sign system in which the meanings given to signs are roughly similar yet fall on different dates. And both zodiacs reside along the ecliptic, which is the Sun’s equator extended into space. Because the planets orbit the Sun within eight degrees above or below the plane of the ecliptic, the zodiac is a 16° band circling the Sun. However, this is where the two zodiacs part company. The sidereal zodiac is comprised of 12 equal, 30-degree constellations―groupings of stars―visible along the ecliptic. And while both zodiacs begin with Aries, the sidereal zodiac defines Aries in terms of fixed stars.

3

Vernal Point = Intersection of Celestial Equator and Ecliptic Conversely, the tropical zodiac places Aries at the vernal equinox (first day of spring), which is where the earth’s celestial equator intersects the plane of the ecliptic due to the earth’s axis being tilted at an angle of 23° relative to its orbital plane. Before exploring how the two-zodiac problem might be solved, let me dispense with one approach that’s unlikely to be helpful: The claim that both zodiacs are equally valid for their system. As whole systems, differences between western and Vedic astrology are relatively superficial, with more overlap than difference. Conversely, the difference between the two zodiacs is fundamental and irreconcilable. It will do us no good to hedge the issue. Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Put simply, a thing cannot be itself and not itself; March cannot be March andFebruary. Two zodiacs that assign the same meanings to different dates and different meanings to the same dates are inherently contradictory.

4

Mutual tolerance for both zodiacs may be a feel-good, politically correct position, but it is also an intellectually lazy one. I also don’t think personal, subjective experience can tell us which zodiac is correct because there are too many ways an astrological archetype can be represented in a chart. In the end, all that matters is whether an explanation is persuasive; that is, whether it explains the facts of the matter in a clear, comprehensive and convincing fashion. Most treatments of the debate focus on whether the ancients measured planetary position from the fixed stars, or from the equinoctial and solsticial points. A star-based measurement system would favor the sidereal zodiac; measuring from the cardinal points would favor the tropical. In fact, as we shall see, the original zodiac was actually a hybrid defined by fixed stars and cardinal points. But really, this misses the point. The important question is why the zodiac came into being in the first place. For what purpose did it originate? The entire two-zodiac controversy hinges on a single question: Could constellational meanings have originated independent of seasonal processes? That is, could the constellations have come into being without being anchored to the equinoctial and solstitial points? In astrology, the mutable signs are associated with intellectual inquiry. Gemini facts lead the way, followed by Virgonian analysis. Sagittarian abstract reasoning looks at the evidence to see if it supports or refutes a hypothesis. Then, there’s Pisces, which is the least intellectual of the mutable signs, but perhaps the most critical to our task. Pisces is direct perception, or knowing by empathic connection with the thing known. Unless we can place ourselves in the mind-set of early humans when the night sky first took on meaning, our treatment of the problem is apt to be short-sighted, a dry, objective analysis and interpretation of facts, but without any depth of understanding. To achieve depth, we must utilize the gifts of Pisces: imagination, and empathy. We must imagine what it was like before astrology, and try to empathize with early humans gazing upwards as the stars slowly drifted across the vault of heaven…seeing the Moon grow larger night to night, finally full, then smaller, and eventually returning to full again, each month in a different sector of the night sky. And with each lunar cycle there were corresponding changes on earth―alterations in duration of light and darkness, heat and cold, vegetative cycles and animal migrations―always following the same sequence, year after year, until gradually the sequence became predictable.

5

For early humans, life was harsh, brutal, and short. One could die in a dozen ways, none of them natural―starvation, bear attack, or simply the bitter cold. Adapting to the rhythms and cycles of nature was critical to survival. Observation of the night sky focused on one all-important question: as the stars move, what happens here, in my world? What happens to me? Of special significance were the stars that rose just ahead of the Sun at dawn (heliacal rising). For every lunar cycle, the Sun inhabited a sector of sky that became associated with earthly phenomena that occurred during that 30-day period. Such sectors came to be known as constellations that heralded specific times of year. As days grew longer or shorter, nature reflected changes in the duration of daylight in an ever-repeating yearly cycle. The rains came, rivers flooded, bears awoke from hibernation, flowers bloomed, trees lost their leaves, animals migrated, lakes froze, round and round, always the same sequence on earth, always the same constellations above.

6

Superhuman Sky Gods Understandably, the ancients concluded it was the constellation the Sun was currently occupying that determined such changes. In Babylonia, where the zodiac originated, it was assumed that the constellations were formed at the beginning of time by all-powerful sky-beings. The figures that populated the heavens were not simply passive symbols representing the seasons; they were superhuman, celestial gods with a direct, causative effect upon the world of humans. Every constellation, every month, had its own meaning and signaled to the tribe the requisite activity to be performed― migrating salmon headed upstream, spear them; strawberries ripe, pick them; chestnuts fallen on ground, store them. The starry heavens comprised the ancient calendar and were a means for organizing time into discernible segments and qualities; but they were also messengers whose annual appearance told humans what to do now.

By the time agriculture began in approximately 10,000 BC, observation of the night sky turned serious. There was an exact right time for planting crops and you could easily get it

7

wrong if there was an unseasonably warm period in mid-February. The ability to predict when the seasons were about to shift was critical to the survival of the tribe and was the prime motivation for observing the changing sky. Knowing the proper times for sowing, cultivating, and harvesting crops were universal human concerns and the basis for organization of communal life. Toward this end, the Sun’s latitudinal movement along the horizon at dawn was of particular importance. For six months, the Sun rose in a progressively northern latitude as days grew longer, then turned (tropos) at the constellation Cancer and moved in a southern direction as days grew shorter. Upon reaching sidereal Capricorn at its most southern latitude, it turned again. During its northward movement, it arched higher across the day sky; during its southern trek, it hung lower. The annual back and forth movement of the Sun along the horizon had four discernable stages ― two equinoxes and two solstices ― marking seasonal changes in accordance with durations of daylight and night. At the vernal equinox, days and nights became equal but daylight was increasing; at the summer solstice, daylight was maximum but subsequently days got shorter; at the autumnal equinox, days and nights were again equal but darkness was increasing; and at the winter solstice, daylight was minimal, but again began to increase. These dates and their corresponding constellations marked the turn of the seasons. Activities performed at various times of the year ―plowing, planting, harvesting ― became associated with the constellational deity that ruled that phase of the year. Monthly rituals, festivals, and appropriate sacrifices all occurred in synchrony with the annual appearance of the representative constellation at dawn. Myths evolved to explain how and why the gods controlled their corresponding seasonal processes. In this way, natural events were symbolically encoded in allegorical representations. This made the constellations memorable, which was critically important at a time in history when writing did not yet exist. Because each month had its own quality, zodiacal constellations were metaphors of seasonal processes occurring in nature. Aries is spring-like as nature is heating up and new life is sprouting, bold and fresh. Libra is balanced, just as the duration of light and darkness is perfectly balanced at the start of autumn. Scorpio is transformational as leaves are turning colors, falling to the ground, and nature is dying. Capricorn is winter-like, signifying when nature is maximally contracted, days are short, and austerity is required. Over time, zodiacal signs came to have additional meanings that went beyond their correlation to seasonal processes; yet (and this is a critical point), all such meanings were self-consistent with their original, root meaning in nature.

8

Summer Solstice Sunrise at Stonehenge It is difficult to summarize in a few sentences the immensity of data detailing how early humans organized virtually every facet of tribal life in conformity with the equinox and solstice points. Obsession with celestial correlates to equinox and solstice dates was so prevalent in the ancient world that it constituted a kind of human unanimity, being the central defining feature of ancient ceremonial monuments everywhere on earth, from the Inca’s Torreon in Machu Picchu, to the Mayan pyramid of Chichen Itza, the Bighorn Medicine Wheel and Sundance Lodge of the Plains Indians, Stonehenge in England, Newgrange passage tomb in Ireland, and the Great Pyramid of Egypt whose sides famously align with the four cardinal directions. At each site there is invariably a face, an aperture, a shaft, or some other means upon or through which the rays of the Sun exactly pass on the day of an equinox or solstice, thus heralding the changing of the seasons. While the origins of zodiacal constellations predate recorded history, the bulk of Mesopotamian constellations were created within a relatively short interval around 1300 to 1000 BC. By 500 BC, the Babylonians had converted approximately 18 fuzzy, unequal constellations into 12 equal, sharply defined 30-degree sectors called zodiacal signs. At this time, signs and constellations were still conflated; constellation was sign, and sign was constellation. The Babylonian zodiac was sidereal in the sense that planetary positions were determined in relation to the fixed stars of the constellations, BUT (and this is a big ‘but’) it was tropical in that the midpoints of the cardinal signs―Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn―were placed precisely at the equinoctial and solstitial points, as if anchored to them. The vernal equinox was at 15° Aries, the summer solstice at 15° Cancer, the autumnal equinox at 15° Libra, and

9

the winter solstice at 15° Capricorn. From this, one might surmise an intention to associate specific constellations with specific seasons.

Due to Precession of the Equinoxes, the Cardinal Points Have Drifted into Previous Constellations In fact, by the first millennium BC, there was virtually no difference between the Babylonian Calendar and the Babylonian Zodiac. Twelve months of 30 days became 12 signs of 30 degrees. That the sidereal zodiac was tied to the seasons is plainly evident in the fact that the first new moon closest to the vernal equinox in the constellation Aries started their calendar. Bottom line, the equinoctial and solsticial points were all-important markers of temporal order. First the Babylonians determined their location in the sky, then built the zodiac around them. Just as ancient cultures built monuments around the cardinal points to commemorate the dates they occurred, so the cardinal points became the mighty frame for the entire zodiac structure.

10

Vernal Point is Now in Sidereal Pisces Precession of the equinoxes is critical to our understanding of why the original zodiac bifurcated into two separate zodiacs. Precession is caused by the Earth’s wobble on its axis, which is induced by the gravitational tug of Sun and Moon. As a result, the Earth’s polar axis traces out a cone of approximately 26,000 years, which is how long it takes the vernal point to make a complete circle against the backdrop of the stars and return to a previous position. This means that the vernal equinox slowly drifts backwards through each constellation at the rate of 1° every 72 years. The ancients displayed no technical or written understanding of precession until the 2nd century BC, and even then, it was not widely known or properly understood. For early stargazers, the constellations and earthly phenomena seemed to be in a fixed relationship to one another, as if attached by cosmic cables.

11

This cosmological feature was called durmahu by the Babylonians, which refers to a strong rope made of reeds that tied terrestrial seasons to celestial movements. As the Sun moved into a new constellation every month, so the seasons were pulled along like an ox pulls a cart―or, so it seemed.

Heliacal Rising of Sidereal Virgo Signals, “Harvest Wheat!” With no awareness of precession or the actual cause of seasonal variations, early stargazers conflated constellations with their corresponding seasonal periods. If the constellation Virgo rose ahead of the Sun every year when wheat was ready to be harvested, so the ancients naturally equated that constellation with the harvesting of wheat.

12

Sidereal Aquarius and the Urn of Rain If the rains in Babylonia fell in their greatest abundance in late winter and early spring, it was the god Aquarius in the heavens that controlled the rains. Aquarius’ overflowing vases were not regarded as simply a seasonal allegory of the rains, but the actual physical source of the waters that fell to earth. However, in approximately 134 BC, the Greek astronomer Hipparchus checked the measurements of star positions by his predecessors. He noted that a certain star’s appearance in the dawn sky was drifting slightly forward century to century relative to the autumnal equinox. In fact, it was not the star that was moving, but the equinox that was drifting backwards.

13

Recall that at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC when the 12-sign zodiac was first constructed, the equinox and solstice points were set in the middle of their corresponding constellations―Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn. However, by mid-millennium, the vernal equinox had drifted to 10 degrees Aries. And when Hipparchus discovered precession in 134 BC, it had shifted to 5 degrees Aries. The implication was staggering because it directly implied that the stars were not stable markers of the seasons and thus could not be relied upon for construction of accurate calendars over time. Seasonal predictability was the whole impetus behind calendar keeping, and calendar-keeping is the foundation upon which astrology rests. Division of the year into 4 seasons with 3 substages was clearly wedded to the solstice and equinox points, the locations of which were thought to be anchored to specific stars in specific constellations. Yet, the cardinal points and cardinal constellations were slowly drifting apart. Given the rate of precession, the cardinal points would eventually fall in constellations completely out of synch with earthly seasons and their requisite activities. If there was continuous slippage between the cardinal points and their corresponding constellations, the eventual mistiming of seasonal based activities, especially agriculture, was inevitable. This led to Hipparchus’s decision to begin the zodiac with the vernal equinox, though there were precedents for this even before him. Subsequently, others followed. It had become obvious that the only way to keep the zodiac in synch with the seasons was to link it permanently to the cardinal points and abandon any reference to fixed stars. By separating the vernal point from the constellations and making it the official beginning of the zodiac, Hipparchus’s tropical zodiac did a better job of measuring time. Hence, it slowly gained prominence and superseded the older, less reliable constellational model.

Ptolemy (100 – 170 AD) In Ptolemy’s monumental work, Tetrabiblos from the 2nd century AD, which summarizes the astrological tradition as it was handed down by his predecessors, he emphatically reports the consensus view that [quote] “the powers of the signs take their cause from the solstitial and equinoctial starting-places, and from no other source.” By the 3rd century AD, it had become clear that zodiacal constellations never had the power to determine earthly phenomena that early humans projected upon them. The notion that

14

constellations had power and meaning in themselves had merely been an illusion rooted in a misperception of the actual cause of seasonal processes. From at least 2000 BC, as more sophisticated mathematical schemes evolved, constellations had been chopped, expanded, added, or eliminated, which only underscores that they never had any inherent meaning in themselves―that is, they were not gods with divine powers to determine events on earth as the ancients supposed. They were merely artificial constructs, expedient groupings of stars that served as a backdrop for measuring planetary movements and shifting phases of time, the causes of which were still not understood.

Angle Denotes Meaning Note that signs in the tropical system are essentially angles carved out by the earth’s annual orbit about the Sun. Every 30 degrees from the vernal equinox constitutes a new sign. This same sequence of angles repeats itself with houses and aspects. They, too, are comprised of the same angles―0, 30, 60, 90, 120, and 180―and their meanings share a kinship with the signs to which they correspond. Again, signs, houses, and aspects are all based on multiples of 30 degrees.

15

All Meaning Is An Angle This is what gives us our system of rulerships. In astrology, all meaning is an angle; a phase within a more encompassing 360° cycle. Think about it: houses and aspects are completely unrelated to constellations; yet, they share a kinship of meaning with their corresponding signs. Libra, the 7th house, and the opposition are variations on a theme. Why? Because they’re comprised of the same 180° angle. By all accounts, Hellenistic astrology was transmitted to India in the 1stand 2nd century AD and quite possibly earlier. It seems that all academic scholars who have specialized in the origins of astrology―Otto Neugebauer, Bartel van der Waerden, and David Pingree among them―agree on this point: India inherited most of its astrology from the Greeks. I am aware this is a controversial statement, especially here, and I cannot personally attest to its truth. I am simply unaware of any evidence to the contrary. India did have an ancient system of 28 lunar Nakshatras analogous to constellations, which went back to at least the 3rd millennium BC. But prior to the 2nd century AD there was no zodiac in India of 12 equal, 30-degree divisions with four cardinal points. In fact, there was no zodiac at all. Once imported, however, the sidereal zodiac of India began with the constellation Aries, just as it did with the Hellenistic Greeks. And up until the 5th century AD, Aries began with a fixed star that coincided with the vernal point at that time. Vedic scholar Dieter Koch asserts that the Puranas and other Vedic texts from 200 to 600 AD all state “the solstices are at the beginning of Capricorn and Cancer and the equinoxes at the beginning of Aries and Libra.” Likewise, from approximately 2500 BC, the Nakshatras began with Krittika, which at the time coincided with the vernal equinox. Like the Babylonian constellations, the Nakshatra system appears to have originally been tied to the seasons, but over millennia have drifted out of synch with them. All of this suggests that early Indian astrology was consistent with both Babylonian and later Hellenistic formulations that recognized the central importance of the equinoctial and solstitial points as seasonal markers. The problem was they had no knowledge of precession. This is evident in the fact that there’s no mention of precession in any Hindu astrological or astronomical text prior to the 10th century. What can we conclude from this? It appears that Indian astrologers were simply following the sidereal tradition prior to Hipparchus and Ptolemy. Unlike their western and Arabic counterparts, they never grasped

16

that the constellations had no intrinsic meaning or influence in themselves. And so Hindu astrologers continued to confuse the visible backdrop—the constellations—for the real thing. So, to return to my original question: Is there a persuasive argument for claiming that constellational meanings originated independent of seasonal processes? We know the original zodiac was a hybrid constructed of two factors: 1) invisible equinoctial and solstitial points that established the four seasons; and 2) constellations that provided visible markers for timing the 12 phases of year: four seasons of three months each. The original zodiac was a giant calendar-clock in the sky. With Hipparchus’s discovery of precession, however, it became clear that the constellations had no causal relationship to events on earth. This was a momentous breakthrough, the importance of which cannot be overstated. For millennia, constellations had been the shiny object that distracted from the true importance of the equinoctial and solstitial points. But it was the latter, not the constellations themselves, which established the structure of the yearly cycle and the qualities of monthly durations. And if constellations were not responsible for the seasons, it’s unlikely they were responsible for anything else either. All sign meanings are self-consistent and derivative of their foundational meaning rooted in nature. Once the foundational meaning of constellations was refuted, the whole system collapsed like a house of cards. So, the umbilical cord was severed; the cardinal points were finally liberated from their entrapment in arbitrary, superfluous, made-up constellations. The old sidereal division of twelve fixed-star signs slowly fell into disuse both observationally and computationally―at least in the West.

17 Ghost of the Sidereal Zodiac Yet, the sidereal zodiac hangs on, a vestigial organ once relevant to our Babylonian ancestors but no longer in accord with our current understanding of the cosmos. The sidereal zodiac was

18

effectively terminated by the tropical zodiac, but like a ghost haunting its executioner, casts a troubling shadow over our profession. In conclusion, let me simply say we should make room for diversity of opinion in astrology. But tolerance of opposing viewpoints is not mutually exclusive with critical thinking. A field grows by a willingness to question itself and go where the evidence leads. This is not always comfortable, but we astrologers are nothing if not resilient. I’ve every confidence we can survive and even grow stronger through rigorous self-examination. Thank you very much.

19

The Two-Zodiac Problem Toward an Empathic Understanding 25 Apr, 2018 in Constellation News by admin

Abstract: Ancient stargazers initially linked the constellations to the equinox and solstice points yet without an adequate understanding of the astronomical basis of those points or the fact that they shifted over time. Once precession was discovered by Hipparchus and the zodiac was firmly moored to the cardinal points by Ptolemy, the integrity of the system was consolidated―at least in the west. However, knowledge of precession was not transmitted to India when such information would have been critical in the development of their astrology. Instead, they inherited their system from the Greeks but only piecemeal and without sufficient understanding of the astronomical basis of the zodiac.

20

I’m thinking this could be Ganesha, the Hindu Elephant Headed God. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As we gather on these pages to discuss astrology, which is rooted in the zodiac, it is perhaps fitting that Ganesha should be seeking therapy for his experience of not being acknowledged. For his predicament symbolizes a difficult topic we often try to avoid, perhaps out of politeness, or simply because of its mind-numbing complexity. Yet, he also symbolizes precisely those attributes necessary to face it, if not resolve it.

Clearly, the elephant in the room is that anxiety ridden question: can two zodiacs co-exist without contradiction―or, is one zodiac correct and the other wrong? Of course, both Western and Hindu astrologies have a long history and should be respected as whole systems. But every field has issues, including physics, chemistry, biology and so on. There are always anomalies and conflicting opinions about problems that cry out for a solution. This, after all, is how knowledge advances. We wrestle with problems until, hopefully, a consensus is reached, and then move forward searching for new problems. While its been said that astrology is the mother of all sciences, we must allow that the old girl is still evolving. For if it were not, it would be the only system of knowledge so characterized. Astrology is predicated on the assumption that specific periods of time have discernable qualities, and that these qualities are reflected in the personality and fate of people born during those periods. The foundation of this claim is the zodiac, which divides the year into twelve 30-degree segments of time, roughly corresponding to months, each with its own meaning and quality. The problem with the two zodiacs is that the same meanings are assigned to different dates and, by extension, different meanings assigned to the same dates. Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Put simply, a thing cannot be itself and not itself; March cannot be March and February. Given that both zodiacs use a 30-degree, 12-sign zodiac in which the meanings given to signs are roughly similar yet fall on different dates, this would seem to be a contradiction. Two zodiacs that assign the same meanings to different dates, and attribute different meanings to the same dates, are inherently contradictory. To claim that someone born on March 21st is simultaneously a Sun-sign Aries and a Sun-sign Pisces is a contradiction if both systems―tropical and sidereal―distinguish the meanings of

21

Aries and Pisces in roughly the same way. It would be equivalent to saying that an animal is a ram and not a ram at the same time. The two propositions are mutually exclusive. And since these contradictions apply to every sign in the two zodiacs, both zodiacs cannot be valid. Differentiating the Two Zodiacs The essence of the two-zodiac problem lies in contradictory ways of defining the zodiac. Both zodiacs―tropical and sidereal―reside along the ecliptic, which is the Sun’s equator extended indefinitely out into space. And because the planets orbit the Sun within eight degrees above or below the plane of the ecliptic, the zodiac is a 16° band circling the Sun. However, this is where the two zodiacs part company. The sidereal zodiac is defined as 12 equal, 30-degree constellations―groupings of stars―visible along the ecliptic. While both zodiacs begin with Aries, the sidereal zodiac defines Aries in terms of fixed stars. Conversely, the tropical zodiac places Aries at the vernal equinox (first day of spring), which is where the earth’s (celestial) equator intersects the plane of the ecliptic. Ken Bowser states the matter plainly: “The [tropical] zodiac is defined by the seasons and is disconnected from the stars as a frame of reference,” whereas “the [sidereal] zodiac is defined by the stars themselves and is disconnected from the seasons as a frame of reference.” 1

These differences are sufficiently critical that further explanation is warranted. First and foremost, as Bowser makes clear, the tropical zodiac is not related to the constellations, except perhaps as a distant cousin. Rather, it is a 360-degree orbital continuum formed of a succession of angles based on the Earth’s annual revolution about the Sun. Because the Earth’s axis tilts at an angle of twenty-three degrees away from its orbital plane (the ecliptic), its equator is not in the same plane as the ecliptic. If the ecliptic is the Sun’s equator extended into space, and the celestial equator is the Earth’s equator similarly extended, it is the

22

interaction of these two planes that comprises the substance of the tropical zodiac. Imagine two hoops interpenetrating at different angles (see Figure 1).

T here are four critical points of relationship between these planes. These are the four angles or cardinal points of the tropical zodiac. Corresponding to the seasons, they divide the year into quarters: At the vernal equinox—where the plane of the Earth’s equator intersects the plane of the ecliptic—we have the first day of spring, or the beginning of the zodiac at zero degrees tropical Aries. Next, we have the summer solstice—that point where the northern hemisphere is tilted at its maximum angle toward the Sun (the two planes being furthest apart)—thus marking the beginning of summer, or zero degrees tropical Cancer. The situation repeats itself at the autumnal equinox with the planes again converging, this time at zero degrees tropical Libra, and then separat¬ing over the next three months to their maximum distance at the winter solstice, which marks the shortest day of the year at zero degrees tropical Capricorn (see Figure 2). Because of the Earth’s axial tilt relative to its orbital plane, a succession of angles is formed between the Earth’s orbital position and the vernal point (0° Aries). 30° from Aries constitutes the first degree of Taurus, 60° the inception of Gemini, 90° the start of Cancer, and so on round the circle. These angles, in effect, constitute the tropical signs, while also being responsible for seasonal variations throughout the year. A zodiacal sign simply refers to the angle of the earth’s orbital position relative to the vernal equinox, nothing more. Accordingly, the tropical zodiac is a symbolization of the year as expressed in seasonal changes with each sign signifying a specific phase in the annual sequence (see Figure 3). The key to the entire system is the equinoctial and solsticial dates. These are the four cardinal points of the tropical zodiac, marking the start of the cardinal signs Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. In contrast, the sidereal zodiac is simpler with the further advantage of being visible. Again, sidereal signs are merely 30-degree constellations of the same name encircling the Sun like a belt. And like the tropical zodiac, the sidereal zodiac begins with the sign Aries. This has been true since the formal inception of the sidereal zodiac in 5th century BC Mesopotamia, well before the tropical zodiac was differentiated from its predecessor in the 2nd century AD (more on this later). Since there was no obvious star to establish where the constellation Aries

23

began, it was determined by measuring from a first magnitude (extra bright) fixed star on the ecliptic, such as Aldebaran, which resides at 15° in the constellation Taurus. From there, one could locate 0° sidereal Aries simply by measuring 45° backward (west) along the ecliptic.

Due to precession of the equinoxes (a topic we will return to later), the constellations no longer have any relation to the cardinal points and therefore no connection to the seasons. As Bower put it, the sidereal zodiac is currently “disconnected from the seasons as a frame of reference.” Significantly, this was not the case when the sidereal zodiac was initially constructed some 3000 years ago. At that time, a jumble of different sized constellations were reduced to 12 equal 30-degree sectors along the ecliptic, which were called signs. Most importantly, the midpoints of the cardinal signs (15°) were placed precisely at the equinoctial and solsticial points, as if anchored to them. Clearly the intent was to associate specific constellations with specific seasons. While the origins of zodiacal constellations appear to predate recorded history, the bulk of Mesopotamian constellations were created within a relatively short interval from around 1300 to 1000 BC. Seventeen to eighteen irregularly sized constellations are enumerated in the Enuma Anu Enlil, a series of cuneiform tablets dug up in Babylonia (modern day Iraq) in the 19th century, mostly in the 1840s by Austen Layard. This is where the story gets interesting. Most treatments of the sidereal-tropical debate focus on when the zodiac came into being and of what is was comprised. The consensus view is that between 1000 and 500 BC the Babylonians converted approximately 18 fuzzy, unequal constellations into 12 equal, sharply defined 30-degree sectors called zodiacal signs. Converting arbitrarily defined constellations into rigorously spaced signs gave them greater computational accuracy in measuring planetary positions along the ecliptic. However, the new mathematical zodiac remained sidereal in the sense that planetary positions were still determined in relation to the fixed stars of the constellations. There’s no question about this. For advocates of the sidereal zodiac, this ends the discussion. The original and true zodiac was sidereal! Case closed! But not so fast. What is left out of this pronouncement is the critical question of why the sidereal zodiac came into being in the first place. That is, what was its principal function, it’s raison d’etre? Defenders of the tropical zodiac claim their 30-degree sign meanings are now, and have

24

always been, indissolubly linked with seasonal processes in the northern hemisphere. Each time of year has its own quality. Zodiacal signs are metaphors of seasonal processes occurring in nature. Aries is spring-like as nature is heating up and new life is sprouting, bold and fresh. Libra is balanced, just as the duration of light and darkness is perfectly balanced at the start of autumn. Scorpio is transformational as leaves are turning colors, falling to the ground, and nature is dying. Capricorn is winter-like, signifying when nature is maximally contracted, days are short, and austerity is required. In effect, the starry heavens comprised the ancient calendar and were a means for organizing time into discernible segments and qualities. Conversely, apologists for the sidereal zodiac insist their 30-degree constellational meanings are not derived from, nor have any relation to, seasonal processes. The two-zodiac controversy centers on whether there is a legitimate argument for asserting that sidereal constellational meanings are independent of seasonal processes. That is, proponents of the sidereal zodiac insist that constellations have intrinsic meaning (and power) in themselves. Accordingly, if it can be decisively shown that this claim is both untrue and irrational, a compelling argument could be made that the sidereal zodiac is a historical error. Evidence from Archaeoastronomy To broaden our understanding of the fundamental question―that is, whether constellational meanings are independent of seasonal processes―we will begin with the evidence from archaeoastronomy, a relatively new field that investigates the astronomical knowledge of prehistoric cultures. It is difficult to summarize in a few paragraphs the immensity of data detailing how early humans organized virtually every facet of tribal life in conformity with the equinox and solstice points. From Egypt and Mesopotamia, to Europe, Asia and the Americas, the story is the same: All peoples throughout the history of the globe shared a unifying vision derived from observations of the sky that determined their annual cycle of hunting and gathering, planting and harvesting, alignment of architectural sites, organization of social structure, naming and worship of specific sky-gods, and timing of religious ceremonies. Early humans were preoccupied with the equinoxes and solstices to the point that, in the words of astroarchaeologist Evan Hadingham, “it dominated their mythology, the organization of their settlements and social lives, and even the interior arrangements of their homes. They carefully observed the movement of the stars both at the horizon and overhead.2” Since there are no written records from prehistoric times, one way of determining how the zodiac got started is to put oneself in the position of stone age, Neolithic humans (8000 – 5000 BCE) when settled agriculture was just beginning. There were no clocks or calendars; there was only the night sky and earthly phenomena—weather variations, vegetative cycles, animal migrations, and the like, all of which appeared to change in accord with solar and lunar movements through various sectors of the sky, which came to be known as constellations. Just before dawn every morning, early humans could see a specific constellation rise before the Sun (heliacal rising). As the days proceeded, a new constellation would gradually emerge at dawn from below the horizon and in front of the Sun. The all-important Sun appeared to be advancing forward through the constellations. As the weather changed and days grew longer or shorter, earthly phenomena reflected changes in the duration of daylight in an ever-repeating yearly cycle. Understandably, the ancients concluded it was the constellation that the Sun was currently occupying that determined such changes. Constellations were the all-powerful sky gods that regulated and determined events on earth. The ancients linked constellations to the seasons for the simple reason that the linkage was self-evident. As the constellations moved predictably overhead, so the seasons changed, year

25

after year. According to archeoastronomer, E.C. Crupp, the ability to predict when the seasons were about to shift was critical to the survival of the tribe and was the prime motivation for observing the changing sky. Corresponding alterations in daylight and night, heat and cold, animal migrations, the availability of eatable vegetation, and proper times for sowing, cultivating, and harvesting crops was a universal human concern and constituted the basis for organization of tribal life3. Especially critical, therefore, were those times in the year when: 1) days and nights became equal in length but daylight was increasing (vernal equinox); 2) daylight was maximum but the Sun’s movement appeared to stall and reverse itself (summer solstice); 3) days and nights were once more equal but darkness was increasing (autumnal equinox); and 4) daylight was minimal but the Sun’s movement again appeared to stall and reverse itself (winter solstice). These dates and their corresponding constellations marked the turn of the seasons and have been celebrated by religious festivals and sacrifices to the appropriate deity since the dawn of recorded history. Obsession with celestial correlates to equinox and solstice dates was so prevalent in the ancient world that it constituted a kind of human unanimity, being the central defining feature of ancient ceremonial monuments virtually everywhere on earth, from the Inca’s Torreon in Machu Picchu, to the Mayan pyramid of Chichen Itza, the Bighorn Medicine Wheel and Sundance Lodge of the Plains Indians, Stonehenge and Newgrange in England, and the Great Pyramid of Egypt whose sides famously align with the four cardinal directions. At each site there is invariably a face, an aperture, a shaft or some other means through which the rays of the Sun exactly pass on the day of an equinox or solstice, thus heralding the changing of the seasons. E.C. Krupp asserts that the precise timing of solstice and equinox dates and the construction of monuments to predict them was “an old, old religious response that is not a byproduct of culture but something that makes culture the way it is.”4 Not only were the equinoxes and solstices sanctified in ancient monuments, they were the source of myths that depicted the annual vegetative cycle. The marriage of Inanna and Dumuzi is one of the defining myths of Babylonian culture. As a female god associated with the last zodiacal constellation, Pisces, Inanna symbolized fecundity and sex. And as a male god linked with the contiguous constellation, Aries, Dumuzi was associated with the growth of grain and dates―or, more generically, he was the god of food and vegetation5. Their marriage on the spring equinox symbolized the union of Pisces and Aries and thus consecrated the rebirth of life, rekindled anew in every blossom, seed, and fruit. According to Mesopotamian scholar Samuel Kramer, Babylonian kings established their legitimacy by assuming the role of Dumuzi, Inanna’s consort, in a ritual that occurred during the tenth day of Akitu, the Babylonian new year festival celebrated annually at the spring equinox. During this sacred marriage ceremony, the king had ritual intercourse with the high priestess of Inanna, who played the role of the goddess. Their “love” assured that life would begin anew, that crops would flourish, and the great cycle of nature continue unabated. On the 12th and final day of Akitu, the people began to plow and prepare for another cycle of seasons.6 The Zodiac as Calendar Among the most ancient constellations in the Babylonian scheme are those that marked the four cardinal points of the year in the Middle Bronze Age―that is, from 2100 BC to 1600 BC. Although these were not specifically zodiacal constellations―at least not in the sense of a formal, 12 equal-sign zodiac―their existence as markers of the equinoxes and solstices underscores the importance Babylonians ascribed to these points when astrology was still in its infancy.

26

Given the manifest importance of the equinoctial and solsticial points in ancient cultures, we should not be surprised that the Babylonians ultimately placed the equinox and solstice points in the middle of the cardinal constellations―Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn―thus linking these constellations forever to the seasons. I say “forever” because, as Otto Neugebauer clearly established, there is no evidence that the Babylonians had any “conscious recognition of precession.”7 That is, the Babylonians did not know that the equinoxes precess backward in the zodiac at a rate of 1° every 72 years; thus, they could not have known that the constellations would slowly get out of synch with the cardinal points. I will have more to say about the critical role of precession shortly. Suffice to say that the linkage of constellations to the cardinal points seems to have occurred sometime between 1000 to 500 BC just before a new zodiac scheme of 12 equal 30-degree divisions. As Francesa Rothberg attests, the earliest cuneiform evidence for the existence of the 12-sign ‘ecliptic’ zodiac comes from 5th-century BC astronomical diaries.8 Some apologists for the sidereal zodiac make a distinction between the Babylonian calendar and the Babylonian zodiac, claiming that the latter is unrelated to the former 9. Their apparent goal is to buttress the argument that the sidereal zodiac has no relation to seasonal processes. But claiming the zodiac had no connection to the calendar begs credulity. For it is irrational to suppose that the Babylonian zodiac evolved on an entirely separate yet parallel path with the Babylonian calendar. Seasonal predictability was the whole impetus behind calendar keeping, and calendar-keeping is the foundation upon which astrology rests.10 In fact, says Larson, the reduction from 17/18 irregular constellations in 1300 BC to 12 equal 30-degree constellations by 500 BC was directly related with the establishment of the Babylonian calendar.11 The MUL.APIN series of tablets from 1000 BC gives a calendar scheme of twelve 30-day months in which, according to van der Waerden, the vernal equinox is in the middle of Month I, the summer solstice in the middle of Month IV, the autumnal equinox in the middle of Month VII, and the winter solstice in the middle of Month X12. This is a 12-month solar calendar fixed to the seasons and quite likely the prototype for the twelve-sign sidereal zodiac that was in use by Circa 420 BC. The new and final scheme of the sidereal zodiac, asserts Larson, “was a refined version of the ideal calendar.” Twelve months of 30 days became 12 signs of 30 degrees. The beginning of the New Year was determined by means of observing the appearance of the constellation Aries that rose with the vernal equinox. Numerous cuneiform tablets make this clear. When Aries rose heliacally on the eastern horizon with the vernal equinox, the first visible crescent Moon marked the first day of the first month, Nisannu. That is, the first day of the Babylonian calendar was defined by the new Moon closest to the vernal equinox. According to the tradition of the MUL.APIN, the spring equinox was set to the 15th day of Nisannu and anchored the beginning of the Babylonian year when Sun and Moon conjuncted in Aries. Just so, the Sun’s passage through the remaining constellations was schematized to correlate with subsequent 30-day intervals. “The result,” says Francesca Rochberg, “would be an association of twelve 30-day months and twelve constellations, later standardized to intervals of 30° along the ecliptic.” There seems little doubt that the sidereal zodiac was derived from the Babylonian ideal year of twelve 30-day months and was organized to correspond with the four seasons. Larson points out that the “parallelism of the zodiac and the calendar is illustrated by the occasional use of the names of the months in place of the names of zodiacal signs in Babylonian texts.”13 The zodiacal signs were named after their corresponding monthly constellations even though the signs themselves were abstract, mathematical, 30-degree divisions of the ecliptic. This resulted in the terminology of 5th century BC astronomical diaries being

27

occasionally ambiguous in differentiating between zodiacal constellations and zodiacal signs14. In effect, signs, constellations, and calendric months were often conflated. Pointing Fingers―or, Why Measure from the Fixed Stars As mentioned, the central argument of apologists for the sidereal zodiac is that the Babylonians defined the starting points of zodiacal signs by their positions relative to the fixed stars, not the vernal point. As Franz Kugler, Bartel van der Waerden, and Otto Neugebauer established via years of research, this is no doubt factually true. While the equinoctial and solsticial points were placed in the cardinal signs, the signs themselves were not measured from the equinoctial and solsticial points. That this is so, however, does not constitute a convincing argument that zodiacal constellations have intrinsic meaning independent of the seasons to which they initially corresponded. Let’s back up for a moment. By the 5th century BC, Babylonian astronomers had become increasingly involved with mathematical computation and measurement. Out of their growing need for a more exact frame of reference, they created a straightforward ecliptic coordinate system: the twelve equal 30-degree sign zodiac. Once the signs were defined by longitude from 0° Aries, which was determined by measuring backwards from the fixed star Aldebaran at 15° Taurus, the signs ceased to have any real relationship to the constellations. The zodiac became a mathematical reference system representing 360 degrees along the path of the sky counted from 0° Aries. We cannot forget, however, that there was a long tradition of measuring planetary positions from fixed stars, and this tradition had prevailed for thousands of years. There were obvious advantages to using fixed stars as reference points. First, these 30 or so bright (reference) stars along the ecliptic were visible. Conversely, there was no clear, definite and visible starting point for Aries or any other constellation. More importantly, there was no clear, visible markers in the sky for the equinoctial and solstice points. Van der Waerden asserts it was not until about 400 BC that Babylonians could pinpoint the summer solstice in the heavens to within 1 or 2 days, and this is still far from exact.15 And as Hunger and Pingree note, the zodiac cannot be observed directly since the boundaries between zodiacal signs of 12 equal parts are invisible constructs. “The Babylonians could determine the beginnings of zodiacal signs in the sky only from their distances from Normal Stars.”16 It follows they chose not to measure the zodiac from an invisible point they were unable to observe. Since there were no telescopes or computers to aid in measurement, the standard convention was to measure distances by ‘cubits’ (average length of a forearm) and ‘fingers’. Babylonian astronomers eyeballed the reference star and measured forward or backward to a planet’s position by holding up their fingers. In this way, they could ascertain the constellation the planet was in, and approximate the relative distance it traversed day to day. In effect, the fixed stars were a convenience, a heuristic device for measuring longitudes along the ecliptic, whether by degrees or fingers. The evolution of a sharp, 30-degree per/sign, ecliptic coordinate system allowed for more precise measurements of planetary positions, but it did not obviate the need for stellar reference points to conduct measurements. Also, we should note that as more sophisticated mathematical schemes evolved, constellations were chopped, expanded, added, or eliminated accordingly, which only underscores that they never had any inherent meaning in themselves―that is, they were not gods with divine powers to determine events on earth, as the ancients had supposed. The fact that Babylonian astronomers did not use equinoctial and solsticial points to measure planetary position should not imply these points held no importance. To the contrary, they were the anchors of the whole system, the lynch pins that kept the zodiac connected to the

28

seasons as it had always been. Indeed, as Ptolemy and other advocates of the tropical zodiac were later to argue, signs derive their meaning from the seasons. The point here is that the original zodiac of the Babylonians was a tropical-sidereal hybrid. It located the equinoctial and solsticial points in the middle of their respective cardinal signs, but it did so by utilizing the fixed stars as reference points for determining their location. Likewise, the fixed stars were employed for determining the positions of Sun, Moon, and planets. In this regard, there was only one zodiac—a hybrid zodiac that was both tropical (seasonal) and sidereal (constellational). For sidereal defenders to claim validity for the sidereal zodiac on the basis that it was the original system is no argument at all. As we have seen, there were eminently practical reasons why early astronomers utilized fixed stars rather than the vernal point to measure the position of celestial bodies. That this was customary practice is no more an argument for the validity of the sidereal zodiac than saying the 2nd century Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe is valid because it preceded the 16th century Copernican heliocentric theory. The Drifting of Cardinal Points Away from 15 Degrees Because the precession of the equinoxes is critical to our understanding of why the original zodiac of the Babylonians bifurcated into two separate zodiacs―one sidereal, the other tropical―it will be useful to examine exactly what precession is, when and how it was discovered, and its ultimate implications for astronomy and astrology. Precession of the equinoxes is due to the Earth’s wobble on its axis induced by the gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon. Like a child’s wobbling top, the Earth traces out a cone of approximately 26,000 years. This causes the vernal equinox to slowly drift backwards through each constellation. Accordingly, the first degree of tropical Aries, which is the vernal equinox, creeps backwards over time relative to the fixed stars. Having precessed some 25 degrees since tropical signs and sidereal constellations exactly coincided in the 3rd century CE (about the year 220), zero degrees tropical Aries is currently at approximately 5 degrees in the constellation of Pisces. The vernal equinox will continue to drift backwards relative to the constellations at a rate of approximately 1 degree every 72 years. It takes the vernal equinox about 2166 years to traverse each constellation. As Neugebauer’s work makes clear, the ancients had no understanding of precession until the 2nd century BC, and even then, it was not widely known. The constellations and earthly phenomena had always been assumed to be in a fixed relationship to one another, as if attached by cosmic cables.17 This cosmological feature was called durmahu by the Babylonians, which refers to a strong rope made of reeds that tied terrestrial seasons to celestial movements. Rochberg asserts that the symbolic anchoring of the heavens by means of a rope or cable can be traced back to a phrase in an early Sumerian hymn, “the twisted rope to which heaven is secured.”18 As the Sun and Moon moved through the constellations over the course of the year, so the seasons were pulled along. Months and constellations were indissolubly linked. With no awareness of precession or the actual cause of seasonal variations, early stargazers conflated constellations with their corresponding seasonal periods. However, in approximately 134 BCE, the Greek astronomer Hipparchus, who was aware of measurements of star positions by his predecessors, discovered that a star’s appearance in the dawn sky was drifting slightly forward century to century relative to the autumnal equinox. According to the calculations of Timocharis in 280 BC, the first magnitude star Spica was 8° before the autumnal equinox. But 150 years later, Hipparchus measured it at 6°. Even with this discovery, however, there was no understanding of the cause of this movement; nor was it clear whether the stars were moving forward-eastward, or the equinoctial point was drifting backward-westward.

29

Hipparchus ultimately concluded the latter, and he approximated the rate of precession to be about 1° per/century. The implication of Hipparchus’ discovery was staggering because it directly implied that the stars were not stable markers of the seasons and thus could not be relied upon for construction of accurate calendars. As the MUL.APIN indicates, the equinox and solstice points initially fell in the middle of their corresponding constellations at the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE. However, by mid-millennium, the vernal equinox had drifted to about 10 degrees Aries. And when Hipparchus discovered precession in 134 BCE, it had shifted to about 5 degrees Aries. The drifting of the equinoxes relative to sidereal correlates was a source of persistent confusion and tension amongst astronomers of the day.19 Given the rate of precession, the equinoctial and solsticial points would eventually fall in constellations that were completely out of synch with earthly seasons. The Greek Astronomer Euctemon might have anticipated the problem when in 432 BC he devised a calendar of twelve 30-day months named after the signs and commencing with the vernal equinox as the start of the first month. Euctemon’s star calendar was clearly a forerunner of the tropical zodiac and might even have contributed to its eventual adoption. In creating a mere calendar, Euctemon was not bound to the tradition of locating the equinoctial and solsticial points in relation to fixed stars. He could simply put them where he thought they most logically belonged; so, he moved them from 8° to 0° of their respective cardinal signs. Hence, Aries began with the vernal equinox, Cancer commenced with the summer solstice, Libra began with the autumnal equinox, and Capricorn started with the winter solstice. This paved the way for what Hipparchus was to do three centuries later. According to Neugebauer, Hipparchus was aware that opinions differed amongst his predecessors as to where the equinoctial and solsticial points should be located within the signs. “Hipparchus informs us that Eudoxus placed the midpoints (15°) of the signs at the cardinal points whereas he himself, following ‘most of the old mathematicians’ (and Aratus) reckoned the seasons from the beginning of the signs.”20 This is an extraordinary statement in that it suggests Hipparchus was not alone in his decision to put the cardinal points at the beginning of the cardinal signs. Euctemon had done so, and “most of the old mathematicians (and Aratus)” as well. It seems there were at least several astronomers during the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BC who were aware that the tradition of locating the cardinal points in the middle of the cardinal signs was ill-advised. Hipparchus’ discovery of precession must have solidified his decision to begin the zodiac with the vernal equinox. For now it was obvious: the only way to keep the zodiac in synch with the seasons was to link it permanently to the cardinal points. In this regard, says Powell, “Hipparchus effectively introduced the tropical zodiac into astronomy.”21 Subsequently, others followed. Goold’s translation of Astronomica by the Roman astrologer, Manilius, who lived at the beginning of the first century AD, reveals that Manilius was aware that some astrologers placed the cardinal points at the beginning of their respective signs: “Some ascribe these powers [the equinoxes and solstices] to the eighth degree; some hold that they belong to the tenth; nor was an authority lacking to give to the first degree the decisive influence and control of the days.”22 Manilius’ statement is noteworthy on two accounts. First, it establishes that the cardinal points were regarded as zodiacal powers with “decisive influence and control”, and second that they were located at the first degree of the cardinal signs by at least one authority (most likely Hipparchus). Manilius himself “mostly locates the actual tropic degree [of the equinoxes and solstices] at the beginning of a tropic sign…”, says Goold.23 Likewise, there are statements from Columella, the most renowned writer on agriculture from the first century AD. Columella affirms he is “well acquainted with the reckoning of Hipparchus, which declares

30

that the solstices and equinoxes occur not in the eighth but in the first degrees of the signs of the zodiac.”24 Ptolemy’s Summation―The Tetrabiblos Following Hipparchus some 300 years later, the illustrious Greek astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy, likewise adhered to the vernal point as the beginning of the zodiac. It is clear from his voluminous writings that Ptolemy was aware of Hipparchus work. And it can be inferred that he was likewise aware of Timocharis, Euctemon, Aratus, Manilius, Columella and the entire history of the debate as to where the cardinal points should be placed and of what constitutes the zodiac. As he concludes in his Tetrabiblos, It is reasonable to reckon the beginnings of the signs also from the equinoxes and solstices, partly because the writers make this quite clear, and particularly because from our previous demonstrations we observe that the natures, powers, and familiarities [of the signs] take their cause from the solstitial and equinoctial starting-places, and from no other source. For if other starting places are assumed, we shall either be compelled no longer to use the natures of the signs for our prognostications or, if we use them, to be in error, since the spaces of the zodiac which implant their powers in the planets would then pass over to others and become alienated.25 A careful reading of the above makes plain that Ptolemy, along with “the writers” who preceded him, believed that the powers of the signs are derived from their relations to the solsticial and equinoctial points―that is, from the seasons in which they occur―and that to assume otherwise is to be in error, for if signs are defined by constellations no longer in synch with the seasons, their true meanings are lost. Ptolemy’s major astrological tome, Tetrabiblos, is written in a style that summarizes the astrological tradition as it had been handed down by his predecessors. “Although there is no natural beginning of the zodiac, since it is a circle,” he writes, “they assume the sign which begins with the vernal equinox, that of Aries, is the starting point of them all.”26 Note his use of the word “they” in reference to other astrologers claiming that Aries begins with the vernal equinox and is the first sign the zodiac. After discussing the effects of the four seasons and angles inherent in the zodiac, Ptolemy goes on to discuss “the natural characters of the zodiacal signs themselves as they have been handed down by tradition.” Again, Ptolemy’s reference to “tradition” is significant because he is summarizing the consensus view as to sign meanings. He asserts, “their more general temperaments are each analogous to the seasons that take place in them.”27 This is an especially important statement, for it implies that his predecessors―that is, the tradition of astrology itself―associated sign meanings with seasonal processes. On the next page, he drives the point home: The very naming of “the solsticial signs,” Cancer and Capricorn, derives from their association with the solstices, which take place at the tropics and mark the extremes of solar latitudes. Likewise, says Ptolemy, Aries and Libra are called “equinoctial signs” because they start with the spring and autumnal equinoxes. This section is sufficiently important that it warrants quoting in full. For there are two solsticial signs, the first interval of 30° from the summer solstice, the sign of Cancer, and the first from the winter solstice, Capricorn; and they have received their name from what takes place in them. For the sun turns when he is at the beginning of these signs and reverses his latitudinal progress, causing summer in Cancer and winter in Capricorn. Two signs are called equinoctial, the one which is first from the spring equinox, Aries, and the one which begins with the autumnal equinox, Libra; and they too again are named from what

31

happens there, because when the sun is at the beginning of these signs he makes the nights exactly equal to the days.28 What is especially significant here is that Ptolemy acknowledges that the very naming of the solstice signs―Cancer and Capricorn―refer not merely to their constellational namesakes, but to the latitudinal zones of Cancer and Capricorn that mark the start of summer and winter. Likewise, the “equinoctial” signs of Aries and Libra refer clearly to their association with the equinoxes, which mark the start of spring and fall. Apparently, this did not originate with Ptolemy, but was part of an astrological tradition he is citing. The meanings of the cardinal signs are indissolvably linked to seasonal processes. Aries marks the first time in the year when daylight is longer than nighttime. This is clearly a beginning―days begin to become longer than nights. Likewise, the scales of balance that define Libra are clearly analogous to the balance of daylight and darkness that occur during the autumnal equinox. Again, the style of Ptolemy’s writing suggests he is reporting the consensus view as to how the cardinal signs derived their names and meanings from seasonal processes. He does not sound like a radical theorist arguing for an entirely new understanding of the zodiac in opposition to the Alexandrian astrological community, which was a veritable hotbed of Hellenistic astrology at the time. His entire rendition of the zodiac, including the fixed and mutable signs, is replete with descriptions of corresponding weather phenomena―relative amounts of moisture, heat, dryness, and cold―occurring during the month associated with a given sign. If such descriptions did not originate with Ptolemy, we must assume they were part of an astrological tradition. A Transitional Period In his book, The History of the Zodiac, sidereal astrologer Robert Powell reports that most Greek horoscopes from the 1st through the 5th centuries were referenced to the fixed stars and were thus part of an overriding sidereal tradition. “Initially,” says Powell, “astrologers paid no attention to Ptolemy’s new astrological creation of the tropical zodiac.”29 If this is true, it is not surprising for reasons previously discussed. Not only was it practical to determine planetary positions in reference to visible fixed stars, it was part of a tradition that had endured for over 8 centuries. It would be unrealistic to expect the entire Hellenistic astrological community to suddenly stop measuring planetary position via the fixed stars. Even Ptolemy continued to use the fixed stars as a frame of reference for locating the position of celestial objects. Also, the mistake was minimal given that sidereal Aries and tropical Aries remained within a few degrees of one another through the 5th century. More importantly, the duration of a mistake is no argument for its validity. It took several centuries for Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system to completely replace the old geocentric view. Kuhn tells us that resistance to Copernicanism was fierce, bitter, and enduring.30 And that was during a period that had the advantage of the printing press and was characterized by rapid advances in European scientific and mathematical thought based on the new philosophy of empiricism that blossomed in the 16th and 17th centuries. Conversely, the period following Ptolemy in the west was largely illiterate, obstructed by Christianity, and on a steep downhill slope that ended in the Dark Ages. This was not a period ripe for progress. Accordingly, it was not until the 6th century that Arabic astrologers in the east, after translating Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, began utilizing only the tropical zodiac in their construction of birthcharts. Powell laments that they accepted Ptolemy uncritically, not knowing that there had ever been an astrology based on the sidereal zodiac prior to Ptolemy. “Consequently,” he says, “the sidereal zodiac was forgotten. Evidently it’s very existence was unknown to the Arabic astrologers.”31 This statement is certainly questionable, as Manilius’

32

Astronomica from the 1st century AD was reputed to be the most complete surviving Latin astrological text in the ancient world. It is hard to comprehend how the Arabs would not have known of it. And there were additional well-known texts from the period―writings by Vettius Valens and Firmicus Maternus in particular. Surely, Arabic astrologers operating in the very birthplace of astrology would be aware of other authors beyond Ptolemy, even if those texts were not translated into Arabic. They would have known there was an earlier, more backward tradition that presumed the constellations had powers of their own. Regardless of what the Arabs thought, what we do know is this earlier tradition found its way to India. Transmission to India By all accounts, Hellenistic astrology was transmitted to India in the 2nd century AD from Alexandria, which was a center of dissemination throughout the ancient world. Virtually everyone―Neugebauer, van der Waerden, Hand, and especially Pingree―agrees that India inherited the vast majority of its astrology from the Greeks. The evidence is irrefutable. For example, since Hindu zodiac signs are written in Sanskrit and their corresponding Hellenistic signs in Greek, they sound very different; yet, their symbols are virtually identical. The Greek symbol of Sagittarius, the “archer”, is mirrored by the Hindu symbol of dhanu, which means “bow”. Likewise, kumbha in Sanskrit means “water pitcher”, which corresponds to the Greek Aquarius, the “water carrier.” This correspondence of signs underscores that Sanskrit names were translated from the Greek. At the time of transmission, Indian astrology was mired in a somewhat primitive system of 28 lunar nakshatras analogous to constellations, one for each day of the month, and even these might have derived from 1st millennium BC Babylonian constellations listed in the MUL.APIN. Pingree details how Indian astrologers simply split and multiplied Babylonian constellations into the requisite number to fit the 28 days of the lunar month.32 Prior to the 2nd century AD, there was no sidereal zodiac in India of 12 equal, 30-degree divisions with four cardinal points. There was no zodiac at all. Once imported, however, the sidereal zodiac of India began with the constellation Aries, just as it did with the Hellenistic Greeks.33 But since they did not know how the sidereal zodiac was defined in relation to the fixed stars, a revolution ensued in the 5th century that resulted in a new Indian zodiac of twelve 30-degree signs beginning with a fixed star that at the time coincided with the vernal point. In other words, by the 5th century, the Indian zodiac coincided with the tropical zodiac of the post-Ptolemaic Greeks. Vedic scholar Dieter Koch asserts that the Puranas and other Vedic texts from 200 to 600 AD all state “the solstices are at the beginning of Capricorn and Cancer and the equinoxes at the beginning of Aries and Libra.”34 He concedes that while current “Vedic” astrology is purely sidereal and out-of-step with the seasons, traditional Vedic texts attributed great importance to the seasons-based tropical year and its cardinal points. In fact, from approximately 2500 BC, the lunar mansions (Nakshatras) began with Krttika, which at the time coincided with the vernal equinox, just as Aries begins with the vernal equinox in the tropical zodiac. All of this suggests that early Indian astrology was consistent with both Babylonian and later Hellenistic formulations that recognized the central importance of the equinoctial and solsticial points as seasonal markers. The problem was that they had no knowledge of precession. This is evident, for example, in the Surya Siddhanta, the main text used by Vedic astrologers from the 5th century. It makes no mention of progression, a trend which continues for another six centuries in virtually every subsequent text. It appears that precession was not noted by Indian astrologers until the separation of the vernal equinox from the constellation Aries was overwhelmingly obvious.

33

According to Dreyer, it was not until the 11th century that Indian astronomers even acknowledged precession35. It is unclear why they abandoned the linkage between signs and seasons. However, since a different language separated the two cultures at the inception of Indian horoscopic astrology in the 2nd century AD, Hindus could only know what was available by virtue of translations from Greek into Sanskrit. Unlike their western and Arabic counterparts, they never grasped that the constellations had no intrinsic meaning or influence in themselves. And so Hindu astrologers continued to confuse the visible backdrop—the constellations—for the real thing. Summary and Conclusion Although the door to debate and discussion must always remain open, it behooves us to ask whether a historical error could have occurred that resulted in a splitting of the original zodiac into two. In line with Occam’s razor, the simpler explanation is usually the correct one—to wit, the two zodiacs were originally one. Ancient stargazers initially linked the constellations to the equinox and solstice points yet without an adequate understanding of the astronomical basis of those points or the fact that they shifted over time. Once precession was discovered by Hipparchus and the zodiac was firmly moored to the cardinal points by Ptolemy, the integrity of the system was consolidated―at least in the west. However, knowledge of precession was not transmitted to India when such information would have been critical in the development of their astrology. Instead, they inherited their system from the Greeks but only piecemeal and without sufficient understanding of the astronomical basis of the zodiac. Certainly, this will not be the final word on the matter. Astrologers with a long-standing investment in the sidereal zodiac will understandably find it difficult to relinquish their attachment. We should make room for diversity of opinion in astrology, but not at the expense of veracity. Tolerance of opposing viewpoints is not mutually exclusive with critical thinking. When there is insufficient evidence to warrant a final conclusion, one should be open to competing hypotheses. However, when there is sufficient evidence, vacillation about the issue merely perpetuates confusion, compromises efficacy of practice, and weakens the overall credibility of our field. Notes and References 1. Bowser, Ken (2017), “Western Sidereal Astrology: The Zodiac Issue,” from https://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/part-one-of-three-part-series, accessed 10/19/17. 2. Hadingham, E. (1984). Early man and the cosmos. New York: Walker and Company, p. 109 3. Krupp, E.C., (1994). Echoes of the ancient skies. New York: Harper & Row 4. Ibid, p. 148 5. Kramer, Samuel Noah (1970), The Sacred Marriage Rite, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press 6. Ibid. 7. Neugebauer, Otto (1950). “The Alleged Babylonian Discovery of the Precession of the Equinoxes,” Journal of the American Oriental Society,” Vol. 70, No. 1, p. 6 8. Rochberg, Francesca (2007). The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 129

34

9. Powell, Robert (2007). History of the Zodiac. San Rafael, CA: Sophia Academic Press 10. Campion, Nicholas (2008). The Dawn of Astrology. London: Continuum Books. 11. Larson, Gary (2016). “The Origin of the Zodiac” from http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-david-thompson/page9a.html, referenced 10/16/17. 12. Van der Waerden, B.L. (1974). Science awakening II, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 80-83 13. Larson, Ibid. 14. Steele, John (2007). “Celestial Measurement in Babylonian Astronomy,” Annals of Science, Volume 64, Number 3, 2007, Pages 293-325. 15. Van der Waerden, B.L. (1968). “The Date of Invention of Babylonian Planetary Theory,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 5 (1968), p. 72 16. Hunger, Herman and Pingree, David (1999). Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia. Boston, MA: Brill Publishers, p. 146 17. Rochberg, Ibid, p. 198 18. Rochberg, Ibid 19. Steele quotes Neugebauer as stating that during the whole Seleucid period (312 BC to 63 BC), two different approaches existed side by side for measuring stellar and planetary positions―an ecliptic coordinate system with a sidereally fixed vernal point that measured positions of celestial bodies by coordinates counted in degrees (e.g., 5 degrees Scorpio), and the other a set of 31 fixed stars from which distances were measured in cubits and fingers. This overlapping of different systems seems to represent a transitional period in astronomy. See John Steele (“Celestial Measurement in Babylonian Astronomy,” Annals of Science, Volume 64, Number 3, 2007, Pages 293-325.) 20. Neugebauer, Otto (1975). A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy (3 vols.). Berlin-Heidelberg-New York. 21. Powell, Ibid., p. 51 22. Manilius. Astronomica, trsl. G.P. Goold (1977). Loeb Classic Library, pp. 25-27, 47, 219 23. Ibid., p. Manilius, Astronomica, introduction by G.P. Goold, p LXXXI. 24. Columella, Lucius Junius Moderatus. DE re rustica IX,14, Latin text with English trsl. Ash-Forster-Heffner II, (3 vols., 1941, 1954, 1955). Loeb Classical Library, pp. 487-489. 25. Ptolemy, Claudius. Tetrabiblos: Greek text with English translation by F.E. Robbins (1940). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 109-111 26. Ibid, p. 59-61 27. Ibid, p. 65 28. Ibid, p. 67 29. Powel, Ibid., p. 80 30. Kuhn, Thomas (1957). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. New York: Vintage Books, pp. 185-229. 31. Powell, Ibid, p. 82 32. Pingree, David (1989). “MUL.APIN and Vedic Astronomy,” DUME-E-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjoberg (1989), pp. 439-445. Philadelphia. 33. American astrologer Robert Hand points out that astrology migrated to India via Semitic peoples of the Middle East and Egypt following the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great; however, many of these astrologers wrote in Greek. Chronology of the astrology of the Middle East and the west by period. Arhat Publications, 1998, p. 6. 34. Koch, Dieter (2012/2013). “Vedic Astrology – critically examined,” at: http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_vedic2_e.htm, accessed 4/21/17.

35

35. Dryer, Ronnie (1997).Vedic astrology: A guide to the fundamentals of Jyotish. New York: Weiser Books.

AUTHOR: Glenn Perry, Ph.D. is a professional astrologer and licensed psy¬chothera-pist in East Hampton, Connecticut (USA). Dr. Perry is program director and lead faculty at the Academy of AstroPsychology, an online school that offers courses and training in psychological astrology. He has written eight books, including An Introduction to AstroPsychology, and lectures internationally on the application of astrology to the fields of counseling and consciousness. Glenn is a board member, ethics chair, and research director for ISAR. Contact: www.aaperry.com

36

A Reply to Glenn Perry’s Article ‘From Ancient to Postmodern Astrology’ Posted by Chris Brennan on January 8, 2008 at 3:32 am14 Comments

I just finished reading a surprisingly misinformed article by Glenn Perry in the latest issue of the NCGR Journal titled From Ancient to Postmodern Astrology, Toward a New Synthesis. Normally I would just let the uninformed ramblings of some random astrologer pass by without taking much notice and then continue on about my day, but I was kind of caught off guard by the rather caustic nature of the article, as well as the string of inaccurate and uninformed statements that it was riddled with. So, I thought that I would take the time to address some of the issues with his article here. Such a misinformed and misleading tirade published by anyone deserves to be rebuked and admonished, but especially when it is coming from a guy with a PhD who should know better than to publish such a shoddy paper in an international journal. Diatribe Par Excellence While the title of the article implies that Perry intends to introduce or propose some sort of synthesis of modern and traditional astrology, the vast majority of the rather lengthy 18 page article actually turns out to be just one long diatribe directed against traditional forms of astrology in general. Actually, the emphasis of the article is directed towards disputing and ridiculing the author’s own rather skewed and minimal understanding of traditional astrology, which is not the same as saying that it is a legitimate critique of traditional astrology per se. I say this because the author is clearly addressing the tradition without much background knowledge about it (which Perry himself later admitted in the comments section below). Perry actually reminds me of many of the modern day “skeptics” or “debunkers” of astrology who attack the subject without really knowing much about it, and subsequently tend to make some pretty obvious mistakesin the process. Perry even invokes the Barnum effect at one point on page 31, much like many modern debunkers of astrology such as James Randi and Richard Dawkins are fond of doing. In general Perry also follows the same framework that many modern “debunkers” do, in relying mainly on his rhetorical abilities in order to get his point across, rather than say, something more than a superficial understanding of the subject matter. This is an interesting case though because Perry is actually an astrologer that simply has

37

some sort of axe to grind with the earlier traditions of astrology, for whatever reason. In the process of doing so Perry shows himself to be quite an aspiring rhetorician, but rather incompetent when it comes to actual research and scholarship. Here I will focus mainly on some of the more blatant technical mistakes in the article, many of which showcase Perry’s lack of background or understanding of traditional astrology, as well as the history of astrology in general. The point of this overview will be to highlight the fact that Perry’s academic shortcomings far exceed his rhetoric, and thus undercut pretty much any point that he was attempting to make. Firmicus Maternus On page 27 of the article Perry states that Firmicus Maternus’ Mathesis …is considered the most detailed work on astrology to survive from the classical period This is not really an accurate statement. While the Mathesis may be the longest text to have survived into the present day, largely due to Firmicus’ cribbing of delineation material from other authors, it is generally accepted by most people who have studied the tradition that the most detailed treatise on astrology that has survived from the classical period is Vettius Valens’ nine book Anthology. James Holden writes in his book A History of Horoscopic Astrology, which Perry cites at one point, that …the Anthology affords us our best look at the materials available to and the procedures used by a Greek astrologer of the Classical period.” (pg. 57) Robert Schmidt makes the statement in his catalog of Hellenistic astrologers that More than any other astrologer, Valens may represent the mainstream of the Hellenistic tradition. Perry appears to know nothing of Valens’ work, outside of a few scattered quotes that he was able to collect from secondary sources, so naturally this point escaped his notice. Speaking of secondary sources though, if you look through Perry’s footnotes you will notice that citations of primary source texts from traditional astrologers are conspicuously absent. He quotes from Wedel’s The Medieval Attitude Towards Astrology for quotes from Bonatti, McCaffery’s Astrology: Its History and Influence in the Western World for Ptolemy, West’s The Case For Astrology for Kepler, and Barton’s Ancient Astrology for quotes from Firmicus and Valens. So while Perry did a pretty good job of perusing the secondary literature in order to pick out catchy one liners from various authorities, he never actually took the time to read any of the actual source texts! This completely undercuts any argument that he makes about the techniques of traditional astrology being “highly questionable,” not working in his “experience” or being “unconvincing” because when it comes down to it he doesn’t actually know anything about the techniques, having never read any of the traditional manuals or authors. This fact can be clearly demonstrated in the rather sophomoric mistakes that he makes in the rest of the article, as we will see.

38

Case Studies In the next paragraph, on page 28, in order to somehow negate delineations provided by traditional astrologers Perry speculates we must assume that ancient astrologers were seriously compromised by a comparative lack of reliable charts to study. This statement is shown to be somewhat faulty and meaningless when one examines the 100+ example charts used in Valens’ Anthology, most of which clearly come from Valens’ own personal case studies, as well as those of his predecessors. Perry would probably respond that he is speaking in relative terms, since he follows up his speculation with the statement that the modern astrologer can study more reliable charts in a week than a 1st century astrologer could study in a lifetime. Here Perry equates the number of charts that an astrologer has studied with the depth of his understanding of the subject. This is arguably a rather questionable assumption to make. Misunderstanding Sect On page 29, in the context of attempting to discard the astrological concept known as “sect,” Perry tells us that some planets are allegedly stronger during the day (Sun, Jupiter, Saturn), while others are stronger at night (Moon, Venus, Mars). For example, if a person is born during the day and Mars is above the horizon with the Sun, its functionality is allegedly weakened. The problem with this statement is that sect isn’t a quantitative measurement, it is a qualitative measurement. The sect status of a planet does not make it “stronger” or “weaker,” as Perry assumes, but its main function is to augment the benefic or malefic status or functioning of a planet. Perry’s ineptitude with respect to the subject matter as well as his rhetorical ability shine through here because he is vehemently rejecting and even mocking a technical concept that he doesn’t even fully understand. He even goes so far as to say that it is “impossible” to test the validity of the concept of sect, and If there is no conceivable way to test the merit of a claim, then it is vacuous. This is the very epitome of a straw man argument, in misrepresenting the nature of an opponent’s position, in this case a technical concept, and then rejecting it based on nothing more than your own mistaken assumptions as to its purpose. Indeed, how could Perry test the concept if he doesn’t even understand how it is supposed to be applied? The Terms or Bounds On the following page, in the context of disputing the “terms” or “bounds,” Perry makes the faulty technical statement that a planet at 27 degrees of any sign would be in Saturn’s bounds… Although I am not sure which version of the bounds he is referring to here, since there are several different sets, this is a false statement nonetheless since Saturn’s bounds are not always located at the end of the signs, no matter which system of bounds

39

you use. So, Perry has made a universal statement here, which happens to be universally wrong. While this may be a simple technical oversight on Perry’s part, it is a rather obvious mistake that he would have avoided if he had anything more than a passing understanding of the techniques underlying traditional astrology. The Exaltations On the same page Perry attempts to dispute the exaltations, which are still used by modern astrologers, because “unlike domiciles” they do “not follow a logical scheme for sign assignment”, and thus they “constitute an arbitrary system…” Perry, being less than knowledgeable as far as Hellenistic astrology is concerned, doesn’t know that there actually is a logical scheme underlying the exaltations, which even ties them in to the domicile assignments. Antiochus and Porphyry point out that all of the diurnal planets have their exaltations in signs which are configured to one of their domiciles by trine, and all of the nocturnal planets to one of their domiciles by sextile. There is even a link to the houses that each of the planets are placed in when viewed in the context of the Thema Mundi, which Schmidt points out in his forthcoming translation of Antiochus, and a pretty straightforward rationale for how the domicile lord of each of the exaltation signs compliments the tendencies of the exalted planet. This theory about the interaction between the domicile lord of a sign and an exalted planet is spelled out by Rhetorius in his commentary on Antiochus’ work: Why is it that where the Sun is exalted, there Kronos is depressed; and where Kronos is exalted, there the Sun is depressed? We say that it is because the Sun is the storehouse of fire and light, and is the master of the day; while conversely, Kronos, signifying the darkness, is cold. Then, at the place where the light of day is exalted, there the darkness and the night is depressed, and that which is cold is warmed. But at the place where the darkness is exalted, there the light is depressed and the day becomes shorter. And again, why is it that at the place where Zeus is exalted, there Ares is depressed; and where Ares is exalted, there Zeus is depressed? We say that it is because Zeus is the overseer of the life-breath and abundance, while Ares is the overseer of death. Then, at the place where the life- breath increases, there the bringer of death is depressed; and where death increases, there life is depressed. And again, why is it that at the place where Aphrodite is exalted, there Hermes is depressed; and where Hermes is exalted, there Aphrodite is depressed? We say that it is because Hermes is the master of arguments, while Aphrodite is the overseer of desire and intercourse. Then, at the place where the intellectual increases, there the desire and the pleasurable in intercourse is depressed. And where the appetitive and pleasurable is, exalted, there the intellectual is depressed. … (Antiochus of Athens, The Thesaurus, trans. Robert Schmidt, ed. Robert Hand, The Golden Hind Press, Berkeley Springs, WV, 1993, pgs. 7-8.) So, in fact the exaltation assignments are far from arbitrary, but they simply have their roots in a tradition and a conceptual structure that Perry is entirely ignorant of. His ignorance of their systematic nature in the astrological construct speaks more to his competence as an astrologer and a researcher than it does to their validity or legitimacy in the system though. Even

40

with their origins being somewhat obscure, it seems strange for Perry to be disputing a concept that even many modern astrologers take for granted and use in their practice. More on the Exaltations Perry continues to exhibit his ineptitude with respect to the subject matter further down the page when he makes the totally inaccurate and rather ridiculous statement that In modern astrology, a dispositor is a planet that rules the sign that another planet is in… However, in traditional astrology, a dispositor is a planet that is the exaltation ruler of a sign; thus, if Venus is in Aries, then the Sun would disposit Venus since the Sun is allegedly exalted in Aries. But if the very concept of exaltations is questionable, then the traditional method of assigning and assessing dispositors is likewise thrown into doubt. Since he apparently didn’t read any of the source texts related to the subject matter of his article, Perry appears to have gotten the idea that dispositorship only relates to the exaltation ruler of a sign, and that it was only recently in modern astrology that dispositorship came to be associated with the domicile lord of a sign. Such a statement is obviously as absurd as it is inaccurate, as the use of domicile lords as dispositors can be seen in every single text on astrology from the 1st century through the 17th century. Perry of course gives no citation for this bogus notion that he concocted, since none exist. It is interesting though, because it seems to explain part of the reason why he doesn’t understand the function of the exaltations, and thus why he would reject them, since for Perry a lack of understanding or insufficient knowledge of something apparently does not preclude its rejection. Anachronism On the same page Perry makes another obvious mistake when he says I may observe that someone with Venus in Pisces in the 8th house negotiates financial transactions in a deceptive manner… To say, however, that Venus is exalted in Pisces and is in the house of its detriment are simply vague value judgements. What he did here was to equate the signs with the houses, which is commonly done in modern astrology, but was not done in traditional astrology, particularly in the Hellenistic and Medieval traditions. The notion that the 8th house = the sign Scorpio, the sign of Venus’ “detriment,” is more of a modern notion, which makes this statement totally anachronistic, not to mention misleading since he also implies that a delineation of some sort would not have been made for that placement by a traditional astrologer. Misunderstanding the Time-lords Later Perry dismisses the Hellenistic “time-lord” systems with the rather abrasive and prejudiced statement that the technique of time lords in which different planets allegedly rule various periods appears so obviously made up and arbitrary that it is difficult to understand how any person of discernment could believe in it. Each planet is assigned a period

41

of time, which purportedly determines the general tone of the life for that duration, e.g., Saturn rules 11 years, the Sun rules 10 years, Mercury rules 13 years, and so on. In a footnote right after the first sentence in the above statement he explains that Time lords are tied to bound or term systems, of which there are several variations – Ptolemaic, Chaldean, Egyptian, and one created by Vettius Valens. Variations of the division of signs into differing periods underscores that the system is made-up and arbitrary. There are two problems here. The first is that in the footnote Perry refers to one specific time lord system, sometimes called “circumambulations,” or primary directions through the bounds. The problem is that the actual time periods associated with the planets that he listed (i.e. ‘Saturn rules 11 years, the Sun rules 10 years, Mercury rules 13 years’, etc.) come from a completely different Medieval time lord system known as Fidaria, and the Fidaria system isn’t actually based on the bounds at all, as he claims all time lord systems are his footnote. He is conflating two entirely different systems or techniques. Second, the circumambulations time lord system is the only time lord system that is based on the bounds; there are several other time lord systems that have nothing to do with the bounds. If not for the random conflation of the Fidaria periods in the same paragraph in which he defines the time lord systems as always being “tied to bound or term systems” in the footnote, then one would be led to assume that Perry is only aware of one of the many time-lord systems. Instead he appears to be aware of, but not quite able to accurately define, two time lord systems. While I guess that knowing about two time lord systems is better than just knowing about one, there are at least 7 major time lord systems in the Hellenistic tradition alone, as well as a host of others in the Medieval and Indian traditions. With Perry’s lack of familiarity with the numerous time-lord systems in the different traditions, as well as his inability to even properly define the two systems that he is apparently aware of, what basis does he really have for rejecting them? More Faulty Statements About the Time-lords Later in the same paragraph on time-lords on page 31 Perry trumpets his minimal attempts at research even further with the statement that the time periods used in the time-lord systems do not correspond to actual planetary motions, i.e., they are not observational statements, but random suppositions. While Perry may simply be referring to his previous confused statements about the only two systems that he appears to be aware of, this statement can be proven wrong in at least two other time lord systems contained in Valens’ Anthology, which are partially based on the synodic cycles of the visible planets (i.e. the 8 year period of Venus, the 12 year period of Jupiter, etc.), which are “actual planetary motions.” The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy On page 31 Perry makes what would be a pretty normal historical statement about 30 or 40 years ago, prior to the widespread advent of scholarship on the history of astrology, with the statement that Ptolemy was

42

the grand master of Hellenistic astrology. This view was prevalent back when Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos was the only real Hellenistic astrological text available, and astrologers like Perry simply assumed that Ptolemy was the most competent and representative astrologer of the Hellenistic tradition. Since the mid-80’s this common assumption has been rejected though, once more texts from the Hellenistic tradition became available and it was realized that Ptolemy was actually not representative of the mainstream of Hellenistic astrology, but rather he was more of a reformer. Some people such as Holden have gone so far as to question whether Ptolemy was even practicing astrologer: Ptolemy cites no astrological authorities by name, he gives no example horoscopes, and he certainly was not a practicing astrologer. (Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, 1996, pp. 48-49.) The Luxury of Ignorance Towards the end of Perry’s article it culminates with what seems to have been the implied premise of his rather dubious argument all along Exponents of traditional astrology frequently claim that superior, ancient techniques are now being recovered for future generations. I find this claim, like the techniques themselves, unconvincing. The history of science is one in which ideas that prove to be insufficient, untestable, or invalid are gradually eliminated, like vestigial organs that no longer serve a purpose. It would appear that this is what happened to much of traditional astrology… Realizing that he is making a totally bogus claim, and likely in an attempt to soften his diatribe, Perry backtracks a bit before he ends the sentence …although it can be argued that its near demise in the 18th century was more for sociopolitical reasons than scientific. This last statement appears to have been tacked on in order to lessen the impact of the dubious historical argument that he was trying to put forward with respect to the reason why much of traditional astrology didn’t make it into the 20th century. Here lies, I believe, the crux of Perry’s argument, as well as his prejudices against traditional astrology. Perry’s writing indicates (and he later confirmed) that he knows very little about the techniques or the concepts underlying traditional astrology, as I have demonstrated, thus his evaluation of the tradition is not based on his actual experience with the techniques, but instead it is almost entirely based on his presuppositions about their nature and provenance. Perry appears to be approaching the entire matter under the dubious historical assumption that the techniques of traditional astrology were consciously discarded because they were found to be of no value. This is a common, albeit mistaken, historical assumption that is made by many modern astrologers, particularly by those who have not investigated the history and transmission of astrology. Perpetuating this myth is quite possibly the biggest mistake that Perry makes in the entire paper. Modern astrology, as it was practiced in the 20th century, and as it is practiced even today by the majority of western astrologers in the early 21st century, was not the result of a linear development and refinement of the subject over the

43

centuries which culminated in the form that it is in today. This is one of the great myths surrounding modern astrological practice. Rather, modern western astrology is largely the result of a handful of influential 20th century astrologers who inherited a few fragments of the astrological tradition and then created a new construct around it which was then infused with their own religious, ethical and theoretical speculations. Robert Hand talks about this issue in his article Towards a Post-Modern Astrology: …we have astrology up until about 1700, which had certain consistent patterns, ideas and principles and which had a more or less a continuous tradition from something like – this date is extremely flexible – the fifth century B.C.E. Then, in the 18th century we had a very long break. Conventional historians refer to this as the Enlightenment. I prefer the term “Endarkenment,” based on what happened in astrology – it almost died. And then in the 19th century a revival began, which for most of the 19th century was a revival of a portion of the tradition that had nearly died in 1700. But then with Alan Leo, and more recently people like Dane Rudhyar, and on another level people like the Hamburg School and Cosmobiology of Ebertin, a rather new kind of astrology began coming into existence, which it might be appropriate simply to call 20th century astrology, but I would like to call modern astrology. Although recognizable in some of its basic technical principles, Modern astrology is actually quite different than any system of astrology that was practiced in the various ancient traditions of the past, both technically and in its theoretical and philosophical approach. The reason for this disparity between the ancient and modern traditions is largely due to this gap in the astrological tradition between the 17th and 19th centuries when astrology fell into disrepute and the techniques and concepts of the tradition stopped being transmitted. While Perry’s inability to truly comprehend and accurately identify these distinctions between modern and ancient astrology make the majority of his technical and philosophical critiques completely worthless, his argument about the historical evolution of astrology which disregards the fact that there was a break in the transmission is completely unfounded and inexcusable. Concluding Remarks Simply put, Perry has no business critiquing, much less rejecting or berating, a form of astrology that he knows so little about. My critique of his article has mainly been directed towards highlighting his technical mistakes and assumptions, and I have not addressed the faulty philosophical arguments made in the article. A critique of Perry’s philosophical misassumptions would be as long as this article on the technical issues has been, although I am confident that these problems will be addressed by other astrologers in the near future who find his rather shallow philosophical treatment to be as misleading and reprehensible as I did. Ultimately Perry’s article is more annoying than anything, because instead of engaging in some sort of productive research or dialog he wastes his time writing frivolous and inaccurate attacks against the work of his colleagues. He of course pays lip

44

service to the main figures who have been leading the movement that he just spent 18 pages attacking when he says towards the end of the article that Regardless of why traditional astrology fell into disrepute, a huge debt of gratitude is owed to researchers like Robert Schmidt, Robert Zoller, and Robert Hand for restoring our history. The ironic part about these concluding remarks is that the work of these three scholars has already made a major impact on the astrological community and will probably continue to influence astrologers for generations to come. While their names will go down in the history books as those who made an effort to recover, improve and reunite the astrological traditions, the names of others who engage in the type shallow scholarship exemplified by the article under consideration will simply be forgotten. Share this: � Facebook10 � Twitter � Google � Reddit � Email � Related Articles: 1. The Questionable Origins of the Exaltations in Astrology 2. The Modern vs. Traditional Astrology Debate 3. Firdaria: A Medieval Time Lord System 4. Book Review: A Brief History of Ancient Astrology by Roger Beck 5. My Book on Ancient Astrology Has Been Released! Article tags: astrological journal, exaltations, Glenn Perry, journal reviews, NCGR Journal, sect, traditional astrology, transmission of astrology

45

About Chris Brennan Chris is a practicing astrologer from Denver, Colorado, USA. He is the former President of the Association for Young Astrologers, as well as the former Research Director of the National Council for Geocosmic Research. He offers personal consultations and teaches online classes through his website at www.ChrisBrennanAstrologer.com. 14 Comments » • Linea says: January 8, 2008 at 12:51 pm Hi Chris Excellent rebuttal of Perry’s article. It’s troubling that the editors of this issue of the NCGR journal (I’m a member of NCGR by the way) weren’t more diligent in fact-checking his submission. A similar event occurred in the ISAR journal a year or two ago, when Perry published a similarly ill-informed and hostile article about Evolutionary Astrology. It’s like the editors don’t have the nerve to insist on the usual requirements. In editorial fairness, your article should be published in the next NCGR journal. Too bad we have to wait a year for it. Linea • Doug Noblehorse says: January 8, 2008 at 1:19 pm Perry says: “The modern astrologer can study more reliable charts in a week than a 1st century astrologer could study in a lifetime.” While this may be true in a quantitative sense, Perry ignores the qualitative aspect of this statement. The System of Hermes is a complex, richly detailed system of horoscopic analysis that takes time to apply and understand. I can say I’ve studied more Modern charts in my lifetime than most Hellenistic astrologers did in theirs (then again, how would you prove such a statement?) – but I couldn’t honestly say that my Modern horoscopic studies even began to approach the depth and comprehensiveness of theirs… Perry also fails to address the simple fact of the longevity of Hellenistic practice. If it was so bogus, why did it thrive for 800 years? Why has its immediate descendant Jyotisha (albeit in a hybrid form) survived for close to 2000 years? Modern’s been around for what… 150 years? Perry betrays his deeper arrogance and historical chauvinism – apparently believing that our Hellenistic, Persian, Islamic, Jewish and Indian ancestors (to name just a few) all really didn’t know what they were doing – by virtue of continuing to practice astrological systems that didn’t work – which fact they supposedly were too ignorant to even notice!

46

Hellenistic appeared around 200 BCE. The human condition – in whatever field of endeavor – has continually demonstrated that if something doesn’t work, it is discarded in favor of something that does – and it’s discarded quickly, not 2000 years later. It is sad to see astrologers – who fail to take the time to become even superficially familiar with classical astrologies – adopt such a hysterical, irrational, knee-jerk reaction to older astrologies. What is the perceived threat? More importantly, what does that say about them personally as astrologers? noblehorse • sunrunner says: January 9, 2008 at 9:50 am Kudos to you for writing this! Glenn Perry has been beating this drum for years and years, not only in writing but in lectures at conferences. The stump speech has not changed one iota in all this time. The idea that traditional astrology has fallen into any more disrepute than “modern” astrology is hilarious. Since when (in the last several hundred years anyway) has any form of astrology been generally respected by “outsiders?” One just has to look at the legal travails of Alan Leo (arguably the great-granddaddy of modern astrology) to see what I mean. On a similar note, I am just as irritated by the way in which many traditional astrologers, who know nothing about psychology, trash and ridicule “psychological” astrology. Psychology is part of modern human life, and if you believe that astrology can describe internal reality (eg temperment) than using astrology to understand the psychological backdrop of a native makes sense (eg: bi-polar disorder is a reality of modern life). My criticism of many so-called psychological/modern astrologers is that they know as little about psychology as they do astrology. It is worth noting that Glenn’s approach to psychology is every bit as superficial as his approach to astrology–he takes the most rudimentary Jungian concepts and superficially juxtaposes them with lackadaisical astrological concepts. Traditional astrologers who don’t “get” this make themselves look as ridiculous as Glenn. As for NCGR–Sadly, it would seem that there is no one in that editorial department who knows enough about what Perry was “trying” to write about to even begin to catch the inacurracies. My guess is that their main criteria for accepting articles is whether or not the writer has a “known” name, rather than the merits of what they write about. • Gary Calderone says: January 9, 2008 at 4:37 pm Perry’s article sounds like an instance where William Lilly would have said, “he hath not the wit of a lobster”

47

• Rebecca Shanks says: January 10, 2008 at 11:34 am Well done. • Glenn Perry says: January 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm Hi Chris, Thanks for takikng the time to respond to my article. I’m always open to learning more about traditional astrology, and I benefit from others pointing out my mistakes. I make no claims to being an expert in this area of astrology. My knowledge is fragmentary at best. So, mistakes and short sightedness are to be expected. However, on the whole, I think some of the differences and comparisons do hold up. Please don’t make the same mistake that you accuse me of: throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would, of course, prefer a fair-mined, objective rebuttal with an openness to dialogue, as I think then that both sides could benefit in learning from one another. Joseph Crane did write something for the NCGR e-news, and invited me to respond. It was quite respectful and appreciated that. Dialogue between opposing camps can sometimes be painful, but if we don’t at least try then as a community we’re like children engaged in parallel play. Not a very mature way to get along. You’re doing terrific work in your own area of astrology. In fact, if nothing else comes from my article, it at least gave me a better appreciation of your mastery of the topic. All the best, Glenn • Marilyn says: January 13, 2008 at 6:26 pm Dear Glenn and Chris: Thank you both for the education. Thank you Glenn for your article. Chris your response was well presented. Both have enriched us with the dialogue of astrology. And I learnt something from both of you. Amicably, Marilyn

48

• Stephanie Clement says: January 13, 2008 at 7:11 pm If you truly mean to demonstrate difficulties with Glenn Perry’s article, then it seems you should follow your own dictum of sticking to logic. But you don’t. I won’t get into the argument of which is better, traditional or modern astrology. However, I will point out that you have gone on the attack and left some of your logic skills back at the ranch. In the following, with the exception of a quotation from Lee Lehman, the quoted paragraphs are from your blog, and represent things you said or things you quoted from Glenn. I have isolated a few examples of illogical statements: “Here Perry equates the number of charts that an astrologer has studied with the depth of his understanding of the subject. This is arguably a rather questionable assumption to make.” No, he does not. He simply states “we must assume that ancient astrologers were seriously compromised by a comparative lack of reliable charts to study.” By inference, Glenn suggests that because we have very accurate chart calculation capability and access to vast numbers of reasonably accurate birth times, we may have a huge advanatage in studying specific astrological techniques. For my money, this is true on the face of it. We have very little evicdence to suggest that birth times were typically recorded with accuracy to the hour, never mind the minute, any time before the Twentieth Century. If you have evidence of such general care in recording o birth times, please present it now. I am not convinced that about 100 accurate charts provides a viable research database for anything unless all 100 charts relate to the same human event or condition. “The problem with this statement [Glenn’s sattement] is that sect isn’t a quantitative measurement, it is a qualitative measurement. The sect status of a planet does not make it ’stronger’ or ‘weaker’, as Perry assumes, but its main function is to augment the benefic or malefic status or functioning of a planet.” I’m not sure I understand what you mean to say here, but this is an interesting way to deflect Glenn’s statement. Just for fun, I looked up the word “augment” in my collegiate dictionary. Augment means “to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense. To increase.” Are you suggesting that making greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense does NOT constitute strengthening? To me it seems just the opposite. To augment a benefic is to make it more benefic, and to augment a malefic is to make it more malefic. I suppose we can argue whether the “more” involved here is quantitative or qualitative. I confess to being inexpert when it comes to sect. However, when I read the following in Lee Lehman’s book Classical Astrology for Modern Living, I get the idea that the impact of sect is indeed quantifiable: “Mary Shelley’s … Sun is out of sect. … We would be safe in saying that the solar principle would not exactly be strong in her chart!” (p. 139) This is readily quantifiable on a graph with stronger—in sect—being above the line, no sect being on the line, and weaker—out of sect—being below the line. “’If there is no conceivable way to test the merit of a claim, then it is vacuous.’ This is the very epitome of a strawman argument, in misrepresenting the nature of an opponent’s argument, in this case a technical concept, and then rejecting it based on nothing more than your own mistaken assumptions as to its purpose.” Unfortunately you muddle your own argument by inserting statements of your own opinion that Glenn’s assumptions are incorrect, another logical fallacy. A better argument, in my opinion, is that there are indeed ways to test the merits of traditional astrology (see my example above concerning sect). By failing to take a direct approach such as this, you give away the argument, in my view. The operative word in Glenn’s statement is “if,” and not “vacuous.” That’s the way logical statements work. “the technique of time lords in which different planets allegedly rule various periods appears so obviously made up and arbitrary”

49

I feel that Glenn makes the same mistake that you made, as this statement apparently incorporates his opinion of time lords with no proof. “Fidaria” If you want me to take your arguments seriously, it seems you would spell this word correctly. Even your own link is to a page that spells it differently! “confused and conflated” Here you use words to state your own opinion, when leaving them out would have been more convincing to me. “second-rate scholarship” You are quick to accuse Glenn Perry when your own blog engages in some of the faults of so-called second-rate scholarship, such as the lack of quotations from your original sources If those sources are so important, I and interested astrologers like me will need those references in order to pursue your arguments further. That, coupled with the above logically flawed statements, makes me question your logic. For the record, I have studied modern psychology and transpersonal psychology deeply, and I follow what I would call an eclectic method of astrological delineation that suits work with clients. I do not pretend to be a scholar. I did not need years of study of either traditional or modern astrology to see the logical gaps in your blog. When I receive my NCGR Journal, I will read Glenn’s article with far greater interest because of the controversy it has sparked. • Chris Brennan says: January 13, 2008 at 9:55 pm I just have a few brief points to make in response to Stephanie’s comments: 1. With respect to your statement that “We have very little evidence to suggest that birth times were typically recorded with accuracy to the hour, never mind the minute, and time before the Twentieth Century.” If you want evidence of accurate birth times being recorded to the hour and the minute then see Neugebauer’s book Greek Horoscopes, Baccani’s Oroscopoi Grecci, and Jones’ Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus. Even Sextus Empiricus gives an account of some time keeping proceedures used by astrologers in book 5 of his skeptical work Against the Professors: “For by night, they say, the Chaldean sat on a high peak watching the stars, while another man sat beside the woman in labor till she be delivered, and when she had been delivered he signified the fact immediately to the man on the peak by means of a gong; and he, when he heard it, noted the rising sign as that of the horoscope. But during the day he studied the horologes and the motions of the sun.” (Loeb edition, 1949, pg. 335) 2. The point that I was making about sect is that it is a qualitative factor in the Hellenistic tradition, not a quantitative measurement as Perry says. The use of the term ‘augment’ was probably not the best term to use in that sentence, but the point still stands. For example, in Hellenistic astrology Saturn was thought to be more constructive and supportive of the native in a day chart, but more destructive and problematic in a night chart. This doesn’t say anything about how strong Saturn is in the chart, but it pertains to the quality of Saturn’s significations in the chart. Also, this IS a testable technique or factor. All you have to do is see whether or not Saturn tends to be more problematic for a person who has a night chart, or more constructive for someone who has a day chart, other factors aside. Who has a more subjectively difficult Saturn return for example? In my experience this has proven to be a useful factor to take into account, but I didn’t get the sense that Perry fully understood its application in his article.

50

3. Fidaria is a transliteration of an Arabic term that is used to refer to that technique, and translation conventions from Arabic to English vary. In addition to that, some of the ways that the word is spelled in English are the result of it being transliterated into Latin from Arabic first in the late Middle Ages, and then into English. Different people spell the word in different ways like firdariah, firdaria, fidaria, etc. In this article I simply went with the way it was spelled on the page I linked to, while in an article I posted in October I went with the spelling of another site that I linked to. I’m not really sure what you are talking about when you say that “Even your own link is to a page that spells it differently!” I actually did spell it exactly the same way as the Skyscript page that I linked to. On Skyscript it gives the singular ‘firdar’ and the plural ‘fidaria’. 4. “When I receive my NCGR Journal…” So, you haven’t even read Perry’s full article yet? The ‘controversy’ surrounding Perry’s article does not stem from the fact that he attempted to write a critique of traditional astrology. The reason that there is a controversy is because he wrote it in an arrogant, antagonistic and dismissive manner, even though it is clear in the article and he even admits himself that his knowledge of traditional astrology is “fragmentary at best.” Once you have read the article I suspect that you will have a somewhat better appreciation for the nature of my response, although naturally you can only understand the issues inherent in the article to the extent that you understand the concepts and techniques underlying traditional astrology, which the author apparently did not know, as I have attempted to demonstrate in this article. However, there are different standards for an article that I post on my blog, versus an 18 page paper published in an international journal. • Stephanie Clement says: January 14, 2008 at 9:05 am 1. From your quote, I understand how birth times were noted. I don’t have any sense of whether this was done for all births, or only for births of notable individuals. I wonder if all the peasants could afford to hire someone to note the birth time, or if there was a Chaldean available at all times, who would note every birth. Seems unlikely, when compared to the fact that hospitals have large clocks on the wall in surgeries and delivery rooms. And were there persons comparable to the Chaldeans throughout Europe? And what about nights when there was a storm to obscure the rising sign? The problems with recording accurate birth times seem aparent to me, just as we depend on the time on a clock AND on timely observance by medical staff in hospitals. Maybe I don’t know enough about traditional techniques. Is it possible that they do not depend on birth times to the minute? The Vedic methods, particularly for forecasting, benefit from accurate times, this I do know. 2. Sect — So. The evaluation of sect is qualitative. someone has to decide whether Saturn is “better” in a day or night chart. This is the very problem psychologists encounter in evaluating patients. Ther is no yard stick to measure mental health, no way to measure the exact quantity of one’s neuroses. 3. What I meant by the spelling of fidaria in your article is that when I go to the link you used, the preferred (first) spelling includes two r’s. The same sort of multiple spelling problem exists between Sanskrit and Pali languages for words like karma and dharma (kamma and dhamma), in which case knowing the cite for a quotation tells you how to spell the word. 4. No, I haven’t read the article yet. We could say that for the pruposes of this discussion, Glenn’s article is the primary source, right? I will read it when my journal arrives, as will a lot of other people who are still waiting. Only then can I fairly assess what he wrote.

51

• Martien Hermes says: January 16, 2008 at 9:14 am Hi Ben, Big kudos to you for your fine reply. I would like to add something to your excellent comments, which to me explains the problem modern astrologers have in giving traditional astrology its due place. I think there are three fields of knowledge – and also three fields of excellence – in astrology. First we have astrology itself, as a worldview, stating and defining the paradigm(s) that are fundamental to its precepts, methods and techniques. It is the ‘why?’ of astrology. Basically it says the heavens are the Logos of God, either in speaking (Cosmic Soul), or in writing (the Christian view). This is knowledgebase #1. Second we have horoscopy itself, which is applied astrology as a worldview. What is stated in the first field of knowledge, is applied and worked out in the astrological instrument, the horoscope. Methods, techniques and doctrines follow from the first field of knowledge, that explain the rationale behind the applied astrology. This is the second field. The ‘how’ of astrology, what do you do with it? This is knowledgebase #2. The third field, which is a modern one, is consultation skills. As we find no instructions at all in ancient texts on how to deal with the people who have astrological readings, this field of expertise developed in the wake of modern astrology. It was sorely needed! Client centered astrology is of course a much needed skill in addition to being a good reader of charts. Communication skills enhance effective astrology, which itself is also a language. It also addresses ethics: ‘must you really delineate and say everything you see in a chart?’ ‘Is it wise to talk about matters of life and death in a chart to a client?’ et cetera. This field of kwnoledge can be further enhanced with therapy based on astrological findings or chartreading. This is knowledgebase #3. Okay, now here’s the problem. I have found that many modern astrologers exchange this third body of knowledge with the first one, i.e. they confuse consultation skills, and the philosophies behind it, and the psychological dynamics of it, as being the worldview of astrology, that inspires horoscopy. This means that ancient cosmology (of knowledgebase #1) is replaced with secular humanistic psychological themes. Cosmos becomes psyche, which is a much more narrow field of knowledge, and self-contradictory. Many a modern astrologer is annoyed with traditional astrology as it refers mostly to knowledgebase #1 and #2, while the forte of modern astrology is mainly knowledgebase #3. Hence their confusion. Kind regards Martien Hermes • Roland says: February 12, 2008 at 6:37 pm Nice work Chris. I agree that Perry’s article was more of a vehicle used to dispense his own negative unsupported opinions instead of creating any kind of constructive synthesis whatsoever. It was very disappointing to endure such an unscholarly

52

article. I am neither a traditionalist nor a modernist when it comes to Astrology and I only have a basic knowledge of Freudian and Jungian psychological concepts. However, even with my own limited knowledge and skills, I can recognize poor scholarship and prejudice very easily. The “Journal” should be ashamed and issue an apology for allowing such an article to be published. I appreciate Glenn’s polite willingness to open a dialogue, however this does not explain the reason for his blatant, unfounded cynicism against “Traditional” methods or the purpose behind publishing his article. In fact, I am most upset by the fact that the promise of synthesis found in his title was passed off with the excuse of: “space will not allow me to go into further detail…” As a reader, I should not be teased into spending much time reading a long article with the anticipation of a positive bridge between two subjects, only to be misled and disappointed by a prejudiced diatribe spent solely attacking one and barely mentioning the other. I don’t know which is a worse waste of time, reading Perry’s article or feeding his need for attention by posting this, my own critique. I guess we wouldn’t be having this issue if he had been more honest with his title in the first place. I don’t care if he has a negative opinion of Hellenistic or Medieval Astrology. But I do care that he tried to disguise it under the false pretense of constructing something positive. Worst of all, as Chris has already pointed out, is the total lack of sholarship or knowledge for the subject he attacked. I hope this will be a good lesson for us all.

53

The Tropical, Sidereal and Constellational Zodiacs Posted by Chris Brennan on January 28, 2011 at 12:13 am29 Comments

Over the past few weeks there has been a lot of discussion about the zodiac in the mainstream media. Unfortunately most of it has been misinformation and false reports, deliberately designed to make people question the validity of astrology. In order to set the record straight, I’m writing a two part series of articles on the zodiac and the recent zodiac controversy. In this article I will focus on what the zodiac is as a reference system, and what the difference is between the zodiacs in the east and west. This will be followed up by a separate article which documents the recent zodiac controversy and answers some questions about it from an astrologer’s perspective. The Constellational Zodiac Ancient astronomers noticed that the Sun, Moon and five visible planets regularly wander through a very specific path in the sky. Because the planets never deviate from this path, which we call the ecliptic, there are certain constellations on that path that the planets repeatedly walk through. This is how the constellational zodiac was first developed. It included every constellation that the planets actually moved through, and it excluded constellations that they didn’t move through. This is what that looks like if you were to observe the planets moving through the zodiacal constellations over the course of a year:

54

Notice that the constellations are of unequal size. Some are kind of small, such as Cancer, while others are really large, such as Virgo. Some of them even overlap a little bit. The Sidereal Zodiac Eventually by the 5th century BCE astrologers/astronomers in Mesopotamia standardized the zodiac so that it contained 12 signs of exactly 30 degrees each. This is what is referred to as the sidereal zodiac. Its reference point is the constellations, although the constellations themselves vary in size, some of them being relatively small and some being relatively large. So, the sidereal zodiac is sort of an idealized or symbolic division of the constellations into 12 equal segments or “signs.” The Tropical Zodiac The system of astrology that most western astrologers use came together a few centuries later, around the 1st century BCE. Most of the things that we associate with astrology, including many of the characteristics of the signs of the zodiac, originated during this time. Around this time the seasons were roughly aligned with the sidereal zodiac, so that the beginning of the seasons coincided with the beginning of the cardinal signs — Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. The middle of the seasons coincided with the fixed signs — Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius. The end of the seasons coincided with the mutable signs — Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, and Pisces. This alignment of the seasons with the signs of the zodiac is important because astrologers made symbolic associations between the nature of the seasons and the nature or meaning underlying certain signs of the zodiac. So, it wasn’t just about the appearance of the constellations or the myths associated with them, but information was also derived from the specific part of the season associated with certain signs. For example, the cardinal signs Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn are thought to reflect the initiation of new activities and changes because they coincide with the beginnings of the seasons, just after the equinoxes and solstices, where there is a distinct change in the weather and the things that depend on it. On the other hand, the fixed signs Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius are said to reflect the stabilization of existing activities and circumstances since they coincide with the middle of the seasons, when there is a sense of stability in the heat and temperature. The mutable signs Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces are thought to reflect circumstances in which things are in transition because they lie at the end of the seasons, when there is a transition from one season to the next. So, there are symbolic associations being made between the nature of different parts of the seasons and certain types of actions, circumstances or qualities that share a formal similarity. This is the basis of what is referred to as the tropical zodiac, which is measured relative to the seasons, with its starting point at the vernal equinox.

55

This is what that looks like if you were to observe the planets moving through the tropical zodiac over the course of a year, starting from the vernal point and then moving through each of the twelve 30 degree signs: The Three Zodiacs This means that there are essentially three zodiacs, or three reference systems that are all referred to as “zodiacs” (which is somewhat unfortunate since this convention is the source of quite a bit of confusion): � Constellational Zodiac: based on the uneven constellations that lie in the path of the Sun, Moon and planets (a.k.a. the ecliptic) � Sidereal Zodiac: the idealized zodiac with 12 signs of 30 degrees each that is roughly aligned with the constellations � Tropical Zodiac: the idealized zodiac with 12 signs of 30 degrees each that is aligned with the seasons Precession and the Adoption of the Tropical Zodiac in the West Around the time that the basic principles of western astrology were systematized, in the 1st century, the sidereal zodiac associated with the constellations and the tropical zodiac associated with the seasons were roughly aligned, and astrologers drew information from both the constellations and the seasons associated with certain signs in order to determine the characteristics of those signs. However, by this time astrologers and astronomers had already become aware of the phenomenon known as “precession,” in which the signs of the sidereal and tropical zodiac slowly drift apart from one another, at a rate of about 1 degree every 72 years or so. Because of this gradual drift between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs, there came a point when western astrologers had to make a decision about which reference system was the basis of what they were doing with the signs of the zodiac. What they ended up doing was choosing the tropical zodiac associated with the seasons as their primary reference point, and continuing to call the tropical “signs” by their old names, which were originally derived from the constellations. This happened definitively in the 2nd century CE when the famous astrologer/astronomer Claudius Ptolemy defined the first degree of Aries as the vernal equinox, which coincides with the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere. Western astrologers have been deliberately following this reference system, the tropical zodiac, for the past 1,800 years or so. As a result of this decision to use the tropical zodiac of the seasons rather than the sidereal zodiac of the constellations, the zodiac used by most western astrologers is no longer associated with the constellations or the fixed stars. As a result, the two zodiacs differ by roughly 24 degrees at this point, which is almost one full sign, although not quite. So, a planet at 24 Aries in the tropical zodiac would be somewhere around zero degrees Aries in the sidereal zodiac. The following diagram roughly depicts the difference at this point:

56

� The inner wheel shows the tropical zodiac, which is aligned with the equinoxes and the solstices. � The middle wheel shows the sidereal zodiac, which is roughly aligned with the constellations, being about 24 degrees off of the tropical zodiac at this point. � The outer ring is a really rough sketch of the constellations that fall on the ecliptic, just to give you an idea of how they vary in size. (Astrodienst has an option in its extended chart selection to include the zodiacal constellations, and a more accurate depiction of the constellations as they are aligned with the sidereal zodiac would look something like this.)

Use of the Tropical Zodiac Within the Context of Arguments About Precession Virtually all western astrologers use the tropical zodiac, including those writing Sun-sign columns ever since they first started being published in newspapers in the 1930s. Because it is aligned with the seasons, it always stays fixed, and doesn’t change. It is a stable reference system. Since the tropical zodiac is based on the seasons rather than the constellations, changes in the sidereal zodiac and the fixed stars as a result of precession are irrelevant. Not only is precession not relevant within the context of the tropical zodiac, but the fact that portions of other constellations fall on the ecliptic, such as Ophiuchus’s foot, is also irrelevant as well.

57

If the reference system that western astrologers use is not based on the constellations and is unaffected by precession, then skeptical arguments which focus on those points are both baseless and deliberately misleading. The Use of the Sidereal Zodiac by Indian Astrologers Now, to be fair, there are astrologers who use the sidereal zodiac, which is roughly aligned with the constellations, and they do adjust their calculations for precession. There was a strong connection between early western astrology and Indian astrology around the 1st and 2nd centuries, but the Indians decided to use the sidereal zodiac of the constellations rather than the tropical zodiac of the seasons. The reason for this is probably that they had an earlier indigenous form of astrology that was based around a 27 “sign” lunar zodiac called the nakshatras, and this was firmly anchored in the sidereal framework since each sign of this lunar zodiac was tied to a specific fixed star. This prior focus on the fixed stars via their lunar zodiac made the sidereal zodiac more appealing because it lined up better than the seasons, and as a result the vast majority of astrologers in India today use a sidereal zodiac. The Baselessness of Skeptical Attacks on Tropical Astrology Sidereal Indian astrology is not usually the subject of skeptical attacks such as the ones in the past few weeks. Rather, what is usually attacked is tropical western astrology, especially Sun signs. The statements that were widely circulated recently were that: 1. There was a recent shift which has caused everyone’s Sun sign to be one sign off. 2. There is a new constellation which means that there should now be 13 signs. As I’ve tried to show above, both of these assertions are false within the context of the tropical zodiac used in western astrology. Within that context, nothing has changed in the past 2,000 years: there are still 12 signs of the zodiac, and everyone still has the same Sun sign. Precession does not change the composition of the tropical zodiac, nor does the fact that a small part of the constellation Ophiuchus falls on the ecliptic. Assertions to the contrary basically amount to a propaganda campaign on the part of skeptics with the goal of undermining the standing of astrology in society. Their general position is that astrology is false to begin with, and thus anything that serves to undermine the public acceptance of it is essentially fair game, regardless of how inaccurate or misleading the statements might be. The end justifies the means. These sorts of propaganda campaigns are waged all the time, though, so why did this one become such a media sensation? In the next article I will review the sequence of events and propose one possible theory. Share this: � Facebook388

58

� Twitter � Google � Reddit � Email � Related Articles: 1. Richard Dawkins’ Coverage of Astrology in Enemies of Reason 2. The History Channel Airs an Episode on Astrology 3. How the Classical Planets Came to Rule Two Signs 4. The Zodiac of Dendera 5. The Thema Mundi Article tags: 13th sign, astrology in mainstream media, constellations, Ophiuchus, precession, sidereal zodiac, signs of the zodiac, skeptics, Sun-sign astrology, tropical zodiac, zodiac

About Chris Brennan Chris is a practicing astrologer from Denver, Colorado, USA. He is the former President of the Association for Young Astrologers, as well as the former Research Director of the National Council for Geocosmic Research. He offers personal consultations and teaches online classes through his website at www.ChrisBrennanAstrologer.com. 29 Comments »

• Rachelle says: January 28, 2011 at 1:12 pm Wonderful article, Chris! Although I have been trying to explain to my clients, friends and family the truth of Tropical Astrology, it seems to be falling on a lot of deaf ears as the skeptics latch on to any method to attack the validity of astrology. You did a great job explaining it and I’m going to forward your article to them. Thanks so much for your great work!

59

• Carlos Duarte says: January 28, 2011 at 7:01 pm Excellent article! This is it! People must know there are interests in the manipulation of information, in astrology as in politics and other fields. What is amazing is how these people, that supposedly bear the “scientific truth”, manipulate the ignorance of the general public on certain fields as their tool. How long can that meanness endure, in our days of fast-information excesses? • Christina says: January 29, 2011 at 5:20 pm This is the best and easiest to understand explanation of this I’ve seen. Even before this whole Ophiuchus thing busted out, I was having doubts about the tropical system, but it makes more sense to me that we’d be in tune with the seasons of the earth, rather than whatever arbitrary constellation drawing the sun happened to be traversing at a certain time • MoonCoach Silvia Pancaro says: January 29, 2011 at 6:31 pm Excellent! I will refer my students to your site for this precise and clear explanation. All systems work, it just depends on the expertise of each Astrologer and of the needs of the client. Although I practice Tropical Western Astrology, I highly esteem our Vedic colleagues and the work they do. To each potential client, I’d say, follow your Intuition and go to the practitioner that most resonates with you. And once again, thank you Chris for your article! • Curtis Manwaring says: February 13, 2011 at 2:06 am One possible theory – sudden polar tilt of the earth causes shift in zodiac, birds falling from the sky, fish dying in lakes, revolts sweeping the mid-east, obviously its the end of the world (must be the hype over 2012). • Zoe Martin says:

60

March 8, 2011 at 2:37 am Chris, I am so happy to have stumbled upon your article and blog/website! I have been interested in Astrology for a long time, and hoping to start practicing as an Astrologist in the near future… I will be lapping up the info you have to share. Keep up the fantastic work. • Alice says: May 26, 2011 at 6:31 am Brilliant article on Tropical Sidereal and Constellations Zodiacs. I have read several Astrological articles by far but never came across a single article on Tropical Sidereal and Constellations Zodiacs, this is something really interesting to read and new to me. Got to know many unknown facts about Tropical Sidereal and Constellations Zodiacs, especially Sidereal Zodiacs. Thanks for the share..!! • Xul says: July 18, 2011 at 3:43 am The article does not mention that there is only one recognised moving (‘tropical’) zodiac whilst there are many fixed (inaccurately called ‘sidereal’) zodiacs, several of which however are within about 3 degrees from the Babylonian practice of a fixed fiducial Star axis from Aldebaran (15º Taurus) to Antares (15º Scorpio) as mentioned by the 20th century Irish astrologer and author Cyril Fagan, with some of his colleagues originator of the ‘Western sidereal school’. Of course the Ancients could not yet take factors like proper motion of fixed Stars, nutation and the sleight variability of the rate of precession into their calculations. One might also mention that apparently some Hellenistic and even Mediaeval astrologers (e. g. Valens and Ibn Ezra) based their topical delineations on fixed zodiacs that have since been getting further apart from the moving zodiac. From an Aristotelian perspective, the wobble of the Earth’s geographic poles around the centre of the ecliptic in about 26,000 civil years would be considered ‘accidental’ motion compared to the rotation of our solar system around the galactic centre (‘essential’ motion) roughly 1,000 times less often. The frequency of the wobble is about 9 million times less than that of the daily rotation of the Earth on its polar axis. Best wishes, Xul • Vasilis Kanatas says: August 27, 2011 at 2:33 am

61

Very interesting article Chris but you are not saying the whole truth about Astrology. Tropical Astrology has stayed in the place where it was 1800 years ago. The Zodiac Signs have changed place in the sky no matter what Tropical Astrology claims. So when somebody is born on the 27 of August he is Leo and not Virgo. This is because the Sun is in the area of Leo on the 27 of August. You can not tell someone who’s born in Leo that he’s Virgo! Astrology needs a new theory to adapt to the reality. In my new book “Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac” I recommend a new Astrological Theory for the 13 Zodiac Signs. The Ascendant in represented by the Moon and sunspots are given a new Astrological factor. It is a new way for Astrology to evolve and answer to the critisism of the Astronomers and the media. • James says: January 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm I agree with Vasilis Kanatas. Even though this article is educational in a historical sense and is well written, it is contributing to the whole problem with its inaccuracy and biases. The problem has to do with the reference points and sign descriptions and characteristics, not the names of the signs. Here is a reasonable justification (as if I need one) for what I am saying USING THIS VERY ARTICLE AS A SOURCE. 1. Both zodiacs are based on the constellations (constellational zodiac) 2 At one point both Tropical and Sidereal zodiacs were in fact lined up with each other. And during this point is when people began observing and forming characteristics for those born on a particular day (Ex. Aries; the ram, masculine, fire, mutable, headstrong, impulsive, childlike etc.) VERY IMPORTANT!!! 3.Tropicalists undermine the basic principles of astrology by ignoring and not accounting for precession. Sidereal does use precession and continues to use the constellational zodiac as a reference which contains the original sign descriptions and characteristics. 4. So Sidereal is the most accurate astrological system and Tropical is artificial If you are going to choose any system it should be sidereal. It’s a simple concept to understand and one that Tropical astrologers and believers should try to understand and not ignore. It is very important that we all get on the same page here so we can productively and effectively communicate with each other. • Chris Brennan says: January 15, 2012 at 3:03 pm I’m not sure what you mean by point 1. At face value it seems to be an incorrect statement, unless you mean that the zodiac was originally based on the constellations in the Mesopotamian tradition. While point 2 is correct, I’m not sure that the conclusions that you drew from it in the next point necessarily follow. The important point about the fact that both zodiacs were aligned when most of the basic characteristics of the signs were first formulated is that you can’t necessarily say that all of the qualities that the astrologers originally ascribed to the signs came from one zodiac or another. In fact there are good reasons to believe that some of the qualities of the signs like the quadruplicities or modalities were derived from the seasons rather than from the fixed stars that the constellations are composed of. With respect to point 3, tropical astrologers are deliberately choosing to use a specific reference system, and just because you don’t agree with that reference system doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong. In point of fact, you may be mistaken in

62

your assumption that the original sign descriptions and characteristics were derived from the sidereal zodiac. We don’t know much about what descriptions and characteristics the earlier Mesopotamian astrologers associated with the sidereal signs, and it may be that it wasn’t until the tropical zodiac was roughly aligned that the now common characteristics came about. As far as the available historical evidence is concerned, this is the only scenario that we can really even reliably discuss at this point. • Xul says: January 15, 2012 at 3:52 pm Greetings, There ARE some schools of astrology, e. g. the anthroposophic, that actually use the unequal astronomic constellations directly for symbolic delineations, dividing the ecliptic into equal units (‘sidereal’ and / or tropical) for measurement and timing purposes only. Entrances (‘ingresses’) into the constellations are considered significant. Since the IAU in 1923 drew several of the borders of the constellations differently from tradition, it is not always easy to determine their ecliptic borders. To solve such matters, distance of the stars in question from the centre of the ecliptic and their magnitude as well as their relative magnitude within the constellation are considered. In cases of overlap, priority is given to the brighter stars nearer the ecliptic with a higher letter in their respective constellations. The famous question about the beginning of the so-called ‘Age of Aquarius’ is referred to the beginning of the constellation of Pisces, probably in the near future, much nearer than most of the sidereal sign borders used in the various precession factors in the sidereal schools, several of which do not even explicitly refer to any fixed star. As far a i know there is no way to divide the ecliptic into twelve equal portions placing the Alpha star of each constellation into ‘its sign’. Similar issues are encountered with lunar mansions. Probably old stone age people, accounting for 99 % of human history, saw wandering stars moving through constellations, not signs. This is what those astrologers who actually look at the sky at night might still see. Best regards, Xul • Chris Brennan says: January 15, 2012 at 4:11 pm “Probably old stone age people, accounting for 99 % of human history, saw wandering stars moving through constellations, not signs. This is what those astrologers who actually look at the sky at night might still see.” This is true, however, don’t overlook the fact that many ancient stone monuments, like Stonehenge and the Nabta Playa circle, tended to be oriented towards the equinoxes and the solstices. If we are arguing for which reference system has the greater claim to antiquity, then the fact that those points were being observed as far back as the 5th and 3rd millennium BCE certainly gives some credence to the reference points that eventually became the entire basis of the tropical zodiac.

63

• Xul says: January 15, 2012 at 10:57 pm Greetings, All astrologers, use they a seasonal, sidereal (with equal signs) or a constellational (with unequal constellations) zodiac, base their calculations on astronomic data according to the seasonal zodiac of the northern hemisphere. For accurate timing purposes including agriculture such a zodiac is indeed required. Astrologers would have grave difficulties if they attempted to calculate cycles using variable units of measure. Here we have important differences amongst old, middle and late stone ages. The former, by far the longest period as far as we know, was a hunting-gathering culture knowing neither domestication of animals nor agriculture. The at first gradual shift towards the latter has meanwhile (mis-?)led humanity into becoming the 7+ billion global pandemic of today. The Stonehenge and the Nabta Playa monuments mentioned above date from the late stone age (upper paleolithic) at the earliest. When reading ancient astrological texts including Hellenistic ones, even Claudius Ptolemy, many delineations appear clearly based on constellations rather than on signs. Sidereal zodiacs with equal signs are generally much nearer the constellations than tropical zodiacs that have moved, depending on the assumed precession factors, about 23 to more than 29 degrees out of sync. Problematic would seem the assumption that the symbolic meanings originally based on unequal constellations remain attached to the equal tropical signs. This problem exists also with equal sidereal signs but is somewhat mitigated. Two other problems with tropical zodiacs have to due with their underlying seasonal symbolism that is most archetypically valid around 45 degrees north and south equatorial latitudes but, if at all, much less so in tropical and polar regions. To be coherent within their own symbolic framework, tropical astrologers would seem obligated to shift the tropical signs by 180 degrees (six signs) for the southern hemisphere. As mentioned above, even astrologers working with unequal constellations are faced with uncertainties about their exact ecliptical borders. The IAU’s 1923 definitions of the constellations scarcely had astrologers’ interests at heart. Here is a link to one of the last comprehensive books on fixed stars and constellations first published in 1899 before the IAU’s ‘reform’: “Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning” by Richard H. Allen (563 pages) http://www.amazon.com/Star-Names-Their-Meaning-Astronomy/dp/0486210790/ref=pd_rhf_gw_p_t_3 These questions and issues provide astrologers ample food for study, thought and testing. Best regards, Xul • James says: January 19, 2012 at 4:16 pm C. B., what I wrote is not to be contradicted because…well it is not possible to. What I said is knowledge and knowledge can be tested. What you are talking about is belief and belief cannot be demonstrated. Big difference. I really am sorry you don’t understand my point and that you need to be spoon-fed. If you haven’t learned and understood by

64

now why sidereal astrology makes more sense then tropical then you may never learn. I am probably not the source you might potentially learn from anyway. I take full responsibility in not being the best teacher and you should take full responsibility in believing in complete B.S. You and all other people who believe in tropical astrology should let go of what you think you “know” and listen to reason. Not emotion, reason. The real stuff, not subjective interpretations. Your response reminds that “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” Tropical astrologers are deliberately choosing to be ignorant. It makes me sad. • Xul says: January 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm Greetings, May I disagree, James? Anyone can contradict anyone else on anything. Strong affirmation of any opinion does not necessarily validate it. There is no reason for impoliteness to Mr Brennan or to others who do not share one’s own views. Astrologers who work symbolically with the unequal physical constellations instead of equal ‘sidereal’ signs pegged to some reference position on the ecliptic might be equally harsh with you. Seasons, equinoxes and solstices are also generally agreed objective facts. Even those who use different zodiacs rely on the astronomic measurements involving the Gamma point. Which of the numerous ‘sidereal’ zodiacs with signs of equal length is the correct one in your considered opinion, please? Who has compiled an adequate statistical data base to validate his or her opinion on the best zodiac for astrological purposes? Best regards, Xul • Vasilis Kanatas says: January 20, 2012 at 10:58 am Greetings, I’ m not sure if we are talking about the same subject. Astrology is an ancient branch of knowledge dealing with predictions about peoples lives. Astrology was practised is Mesopotamia, in China, in Egypt and other places. On the other hand “Horoscopic Astrology” is a part of Astrology that was founded in the Hellenistic epoch by Claudius Ptolemy, Vettius Valens, Dorotheus of Sidon and other Greek Astronomers. It is described in detail in Claudius Ptolemy’s “Tetravivlos”: The Four elements, the 12 Zodiac Signs, the Ascendant (Horoscopos), the good or bad nature of the planets, the aspects of the planets as well as some basic characteristics of the Zodiac Signs. They are all described in Claudius Ptolemy’s book along with many other details. “Horoscopic Astrology” was disseminated to India where it evolved independently from the Western Culture and was named “Vedic or Sidereal Astrology”. “Horoscopic Astrology” was also disseminated from Greece to the rest of Europe where it could not evolve because of the stance of the Church. This is how “Tropical Astrology” stayed frozen in the years of Claudius Ptolemy. In the introduction of my book “Astrology of the 13 Signs of the Zodiac” I am explaining much more about the differences and common points of the two “Hosroscopic Astrologies”.

65

Today they have both failed to follow scientific data. That’ s why it is time for a New Astrology based on sciences. Astrology = Astro + logos (star + word) words of the stars in Ancient and modern Greek language. • Xul says: February 16, 2012 at 3:30 pm Greetings, Indeed, it is not always simple to determine the borders of constellations. One should, however, bear in mind that for astrological purposes the ecliptic is not a line but rather a band of about 17 degrees width of ecliptical latitude in which the wandering stars (planets including Selene and Helios) are seen with unaided eyes to move around the earth. Since Scorpio is within this band, resorting to Ophiuchus is not required. The ancients apparently were not so concerned about weak stars at the borders of constellations but about the bright stars in each, sometimes, however, naming not the brightest but the most significant star in the form of the constellation its Alpha star, e. g. Alpha Piscium or Alrisha, the ‘knot’, the third brightest star of Pisces. May one call to mind that the pronunciation of certain letters has changed not only during the ancient period but also from ancient to modern Greek, e. g. ‘beta’, once pronounced ‘b’, now ‘v’? If one wishes to include even the two brightest stars of each constellation in an equal sign of 30 degrees bearing the same name, one can discover that this is not possible, e. g. once again Pisces. Unequal constellations or equal signs: one cannot have the cake and eat it too. Best regards, Xul • Mike says: May 23, 2012 at 11:08 am Hello again Chris, Another very student-friendly article. I’ve grown to appreciate both tropical and sidereal after contemplating over a Q’uo channeled session regarding astrology and discerning how their unique interpretation seems to have validity for me. I’m a bit biased having had an avid interest in this ‘channeled material’ (both Ra and Q’uo) for quite a while. An excerpt from this page. http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/2006/2006_0207.aspx

66

With regard to the query asked by the one known as E concerning the use of the sidereal astrology as opposed to the tropical astrology, we cannot confirm the choice of one type of reading over another, and we would make a few comments about our inability to confirm this preference. It is our understanding—and we offer it humbly since we feel that it is only a rough approximation of the truth rather than the precise truth—that the use of both sidereal and tropical astrological charts is appropriate when studying the influences which make up the geography of an entity’s interior landscape. There are two aspects to a density. One aspect is relatively fixed; one aspect is relatively unfixed. The masculine side of the study of astrology is that of the tropical astrological chart. It represents that which is fixed into the Earth by the occasion of your birth into third-density existence. There is another aspect which influences the use of astrology and this is the feminine aspect of the density. In this focus of astrology, the information is considerably helpful, but it does differ from the tropical chart in that it embraces more of the unfixed or soul-driven, if you will, aspects of personality. Therefore, if an entity is actively investigating his own soul aspects, it is quite likely that he will find sidereal astrology more helpful in describing the environment in which he finds himself in his inner work than if he uses the tropical astrological chart. • Xul says: June 2, 2012 at 5:25 am Greetings! Reliance on so-called ‘channelled knowledge’, mostly via mediums in hypnotic states of trance, even if not substantiated by careful observation and logic, became en vogue during the latter part of the 18th and especially in the theosophist movement during the 19th century CE. Neptune was discovered in 1846. Alan Kardec, a US-American medium, introduced the meanwhile widespread notion of ‘reincarnation’ meaning a circulation of individual ‘souls’ within our solar system, mainly to and from the Earth. This theory was deemed necessary to explain the ‘social question’, e. g. why there are plutocrats and beggars, outstanding athletes and those born blind, deaf and / or dumb. Based essentially of an extended application of Abrahamic theologies, those in favourable circumstances are thought rewarded for ‘good’ deeds in ‘past lives’, those in unfavourable circumstances punished for ‘evil’ ones. The series of lives is viewed as successive classes of schools of behaviour, evolving gradually upwards to e. g. ‘Great Teachers and Initiates’. In his books translated as “The Spiritist Fallacy” and “Theosophy – a Pseudoreligion” René Guénon patiently explained the absurdities involved. If one restricts astrology to human psychology, a common tendency of many 20th century authors, one can opine nearly anything and indulge in a multitude of speculations, as everything is interrelated. If one thinks that astrology should be based on astronomic phenomena, it should be rather obvious that tropical astrology with its symbolism based on seasons can at best be a regional system applicable from the Tropic of Cancer to the Arctic Circle, where, nevertheless, the majority of the worldwide human pandemic resides. The human demographic centre of the Earth is currently in or near Kashmir, a useful fact for mundane astrology. May one mention that equating male gender with ‘active’, female gender with ‘passive’, only holds in patriarchal societies, the poles reversing in matriarchies? Might careful reflection on the basic symbolic meanings of the three co-ordinate systems horizon, equator and ecliptic be more fruitful than ‘channelled information’? One might also benefit by recalling that mirror images (‘above, below’) are usually reversed.

67

In Mediaeval astrology, astrological apprentices were expected to first sharpen their skills by the intensive, meticulous practice of horary, then elective astrology. Only after a reasonable mastery of these branches were they deemed qualified for natal astrology. Best regards, xul • Phil says: January 20, 2013 at 6:36 pm Chris, great article. Well articulated, and two years later still important for those interested but not deeply familiar with Western astrology. Regarding “sidereal astrology” using western signs and symbolism, it is true what you said about the symbolism defining the signs (not constellations, as these are unequal in the sky) being seasonal. The “mode” of the signs (cardinal, fixed, mutable) is directly related to the seasons, as you stated. The planets that rule each sign were chosen based on season. In fact, in a recent book by one Gavin White (Babylonian Star Lore), the animals and objects depicted by each constellation (as in why the heck are the few faint stars of Cancer described as a “crab”?) are shown to relate to the seasons of the ancient near east. In fact, in the ancient world, the constellations themselves have evolved with precession, to keep relevant to the seasons! The pictures we see in the sky are not immutable. For instance, certain stars in Libra have Arabic names calling them the northern and southern “claws”. Scorpions have claws, scales don’t – these stars had been part of Scorpio until precession put the fall equinox into its claws, and Libra (scales of equality for the equinox) was born. Until we reform the above symbolic meanings of the 12 constellations to reflect the seasons (e.g. the fall equinox now falls when the sun is in Virgo), the current system you described makes the most sense. • Joseph S. says: May 8, 2013 at 10:42 am Does anyone else think that the 12 Houses may hold the key to the collaboration between Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs? I’m just an amateur, but the more I read about this, the more I’m filled with the image that there’s a dialogue between the influence of the stars and planets upon earth, and the fruit of their influence—kind of like the influence of sunlight upon the soil and the ensuing seasons that cause plants to grow and flourish. Taking this image, what if one used primarily the Sidereal Zodiac to determine the influence that is currently being projected onto the Earth from the stars—which is what *astro*-logy appears to have started as—and the 12 Houses to depict the “response” to that projection? If tropical 0° Aries is re-interpreted as the start of the 1st House (which tropical Aries is already said to rule), then that would maintain the connection to Earth’s seasons, which undoubtedly shed influence on us. Thereafter one would be able to remain faithful to the zodiacal signs as they actually appear from our perspective. And the Houses could still be divided using whole sign, equal house, or quadrant systems. You’ll forgive me if this has already been proposed.

68

• Dean says: June 23, 2013 at 1:24 pm Great article! Some illustrations, special chart wheels to this: https://sites.google.com/site/thesignszodiac

69

Open Letter to the Astrological Community… Are We Free to Discuss Astrology’s Real Problems? By Glenn Perry A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. ~Mark Twain

70 Rumors and allegations have been swirling since I gave a lecture on the sidereal zodiac in India last month. I thought it might be helpful to share my perspective and address an issue that goes beyond questions of scholarship and cultural sensitivity. Most people in the west hold the right to free speech and the values of free inquiry as sacrosanct. However, I have learned from recent experience that the right to free speech may not apply when people are confronted with speech they don’t like. The reasons for this are complex, ranging from cultural imperatives to wounds we’ve suffered as a community. But first, some background. An International Incident I am a member of The International Association for Astrological Research (ISAR). Until this past month, I was also their research director and ethics chair, having been on the ISAR Board for sixteen of the last twenty-one years. This February, I went to an international conference

71

in India and presented my research on a topic of significance to the global astrological community: “the two-zodiac problem.” A verbatim transcript of the talk is here, or you can see it on YouTube. The lecture was a straightforward, even-tempered reading of a paper that concluded with an opinion that the sidereal zodiac is a historical error. Only 30 minutes long, it was but a brief summation of a 9000-word article submitted to the conference organizers months earlier and published in the conference proceedings. The article itself was the product of years of research, containing 39 references to noted authorities on the origins of the zodiac. A more recent version has just been published in the ISAR Journal (Vol. 47, Issue 1, March 2018). As the lecture generated considerable controversy, resulting in my resignation from the ISAR Board, the following is a synopsis to provide a context for the discussion that follows. At the inception of the Babylonian calendar in the 1stmillennium BC, the solar year was divided into four seasons of three months each with the equinoctial and solstitial points located in the middle of months I, IV, VII, and X. This later became the basis for a twelve 30° per/sign zodiac organized around the equinoctial and solsticial points. Midway through the 1st millennium BC in pursuit of greater computational accuracy in measuring planetary positions, Babylonian astronomers consolidated approximately 17 to 18 irregular constellations along the ecliptic into 12 equal, sharply defined 30° sectors called zodiacal signs. While signs were defined in reference to the fixed stars, the constellations themselves were anchored to the equinoctial and solsticial points at approximately 10° sidereal Aries, 10° sidereal Cancer, 10° sidereal Libra, and 10° sidereal Capricorn. Hence the Babylonian zodiac was a hybrid, neither fully tropical nor sidereal but a combination of both. In effect, the cardinal constellations were seasonal markers. Wrapping the cardinal constellations around the equinoctial and solstitial points made it easy to identify the start of a new season, for it began on the day the Sun rose in that constellation. For most of the 1st millennium BC, signs and constellations were conflated. There was no need to make a sharp distinction between signs, constellations, and seasons since it was assumed their linkage was permanent. Zodiacal signs were metaphors of seasonal processes occurring in nature. Aries is spring-like as nature is heating up and new life is sprouting, bold and fresh. Libra is balanced, just as the duration of light and darkness is perfectly balanced at the start of autumn. Scorpio is transformational as leaves are turning colors, falling to the ground, and nature is dying. Capricorn is winter-like, signifying when nature is maximally contracted, days are short, and austerity is required. The starry heavens comprised the ancient calendar and were a means for organizing time into discernible segments and qualities. Later, zodiacal signs came to have additional meanings that went beyond their correlation to seasonal processes. Yet, all such meanings were self-consistent with their original, root meaning in nature. From the foundational meaning of Aries as the start of spring, for example, analogous meanings were derived pertaining to birth, new beginnings, assertion, fighting, and war. When precession of the equinoxes was discovered by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus in the 2nd century BC, the implications were staggering. Constellations and seasons were not in a fixed relationship to one another, as had long been supposed; rather, seasons were wedded solely to the equinoctial and solstitial points. Moreover, these points drifted relative to the backdrop of the fixed stars at a rate of 1° every 72 years, which meant that seasons and constellations were increasingly divergent. To assure that sign meanings retained their original connection to the seasons, and that calendars would remain accurate over time, the signs were divorced from the constellations, which drifted away like the first stage of a rocket that had served its purpose well. Henceforth, the cardinal signs began with the equinoctial and solsticial points: 0° Aries (vernal equinox), 0° Cancer (summer

72

solstice), 0° Libra (autumnal equinox), and 0° Capricorn (winter solstice). This was the tropical zodiac. At about this time, the tropical zodiac migrated to India, which had no zodiac of 12 signs, nor any horoscopic astrology with planets, houses, or aspects (though it did have a system of 27 nakshatras, or lunar mansions). By the 2nd century AD, virtually the entire corpus of Hellenistic astrology had been transmitted to the east. What didn’t make the trip was knowledge of precession. Hindus initially copied the Greeks in linking the cardinal signs to the equinoctial and solstitial points. But there is no mention of precession in Indian astrological or astronomical texts until the 10th century AD, more than a thousand years after Hipparchus discovered precession in the west. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries, after the transmission of Hellenistic astrology to India was complete, the vernal point and 0° sidereal Aries were roughly in correspondence. Only dimly aware of precession if at all, it was easy for Hindu astrologers to make the mistake of measuring planetary position strictly from the fixed stars with only passing reference to the equinoctial and solstitial points. Evidence suggests they assumed, as had the Babylonians before them, that signs and constellations were essentially the same―twelve 30° sectors that would remain in a fixed relationship to the seasons forever. By the 10th century, however, the vernal point had precessed some 10° backwards relative to the fixed stars and was now in the constellation Pisces. It became obvious that the original correspondence of sidereal Aries to the vernal point no longer held. Having become habituated for a thousand years to the notion that the constellations were the true powers, they adopted the sidereal zodiac officially and abandoned any reference to the vernal point as the start of the zodiac. Meanwhile, in the west, it was increasingly accepted that constellations never had the power or meaning that early humans projected onto them. Their presumed influence on earthly matters had merely been an illusion based on a misperception of the actual cause of seasonal processes. The true cause of the seasons was the earth’s axial tilt (obliquity) relative to its orbital plane, a phenomenon that would not be fully understood until after the Copernican revolution of the 16th century. Most importantly, while zodiacal signs are abstract principles rooted in nature, their meanings arise from the phase relations (angles) they constitute in earth’s orbital cycle, evidence for which is that houses and aspects derive their meanings from the same angles as the signs to which they correspond. The earth-Sun annual cycle, the 24-hour diurnal cycle of earth’s axial rotation, and the synodic cycle between two planets, are all divided into 12 sub-phases within a 360° cycle starting at a definite point―the vernal point (signs), the eastern horizon (houses), and the conjunction (aspects). In short, the meaning of signs, houses, and aspects share a kinship based upon the angle they have in common. Libra, for example, is analogous to the 7th house and the opposition, as all three are comprised of the same 180° angle. The upshot is that in astrology, all meaning is an angle. Constellations have nothing to do with it. This was essentially my argument. The zodiac originally served a calendrical purpose, and calendar keeping is the foundation upon which astrology rests. Zodiacal signs are phase relations of earth’s annual orbit about the Sun, which is subdivided into 12 angles and anchored to the equinoctial and solstitial points. Once Hindu astrologers rejected the linkage between signs and seasons, their zodiac became unmoored, drifting into space in abandonment of a 2000-year tradition that had always connected the zodiac to the cardinal points, however loosely. In the most controversial slide of the lecture, I noted: Yet, the sidereal zodiac hangs on, a vestigial organ once relevant to our Babylonian ancestors but no longer in accord with our current understanding of the cosmos. The sidereal zodiac was effectively terminated by the tropical zodiac, but like a ghost haunting its executioner, casts a troubling shadow over our profession.

73

Several people objected to likening the sidereal zodiac to a “vestigial organ”, thinking it was disrespectful. Yet, it is an apt metaphor. The original, twelve 30-degrees per/sign zodiac of the Babylonians was a fabric of constellations hung upon the equinoctial and solsticial points like dressing on a frame. What became the exclusively tropical zodiac necessarily evolved out of a dependency on stars for measurement. But once precession was discovered, zodiac signs were severed from the constellations and the sidereal component eventually became superfluous, like a vestigial organ. In saying this, no disrespect was intended. It’s simply what happened.

74 Ghost of the Sidereal Zodiac That the sidereal zodiac “casts a troubling shadow over our profession” is also true for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that clients and the larger public are

75

confused about what to believe. Recently, a complete stranger confided to me (we sat in adjoining seats on a plane) that she received readings for herself and her four teenaged children by a Vedic astrologer who told everyone that they were not who they thought they were; that is, they had different Sun signs from what they had always believed. It caused considerable upset for the family and precipitated a shared identity crisis. Their “felt sense” of the accuracy of their Sun-sign was contradicted by the Vedic astrologer’s authoritative pronouncement that the tropical zodiac was wrong. Of course, the Vedic astrologer had every right to assert what he believed to be true just as a tropical astrologer would if the situation were reversed. The point is that many people are confused and upset. They want to know what to believe; they want to trust astrology and astrologers. But if we cannot decide something as fundamental as which zodiac is correct, why should they trust us? As with every field, the truth matters. Ideas have consequences. If there is a sound argument based on historical facts that one or the other zodiac is incorrect, then that argument should be made. After I returned from India, what happened next was extraordinary. My lecture ignited a firestorm of protest amongst western astrologers who attended the conference. Several charged that the lecture violated ISAR’s ethics code. A.8.a. Different Approaches Astrologers respect approaches to professional astrology that differ from their own and the traditions and practices of other professional groups with whom they work. In a coordinated campaign, a half-dozen or more astrologers wrote to the ISAR Board demanding that I be removed as Ethics Chair under threat of canceling their membership. In effect, ISAR was being extorted to punish me, and in effect, to silence me. The allegations were that I had “belittled and attacked my hosts,” that my talk “degenerated into name calling and arrogance,” that “a vehement tone emerged,” and that my “rudeness” and “aggression” may have “sabotaged a promising dialogue between the two astrologies.” The problem was that all the accusations were demonstrably false, as anyone who reads the text or views the video can see. Within days following the talk, Facebook was ablaze with similar allegations of my being rude, insensitive, intolerant, disrespectful, and aggressive toward my Indian hosts. It was a contagion of scorn and derision spread by social media contact. One individual went so far as to attribute quotes to me that were entirely fabricated. After thoroughly reviewing the matter, none of my fellow Board members thought I had done anything unethical. Allegations that my lecture violated ISAR’s ethics code were dismissed as unfounded. No one asked, suggested, or pressured me to resign from the Board. Nevertheless, the resultant outcry put the ISAR Board in a tough spot: defend me and lose members or punish me and retain members. After much consideration, I thought it best to resign because I didn’t think the ISAR Board should be in that position. And I couldn’t guarantee they wouldn’t be again. After all, I had a history, which several people on Facebook had already brought up. “Glenn has done this before,” they charged. “He attacks traditions he doesn’t like.” A Confession The question arises as to why positions I’ve taken are so upsetting to so many. There are two

76

possibilities, and they are not mutually exclusive. The first is that I am simply a bad person guilty of all charges. The second is that the astrological community is thin-skinned and hyper-defensive in response to perceived criticisms. The first possibility warrants an admission. It is my view that people are responsible for repetitive experiences they attract. After all, this is implicit in astrology, for every variable in the chart symbolizes both a facet of character and a characteristic event. Such events start in childhood and extend into adulthood, always of the same pattern―yet, each new episode provides a vehicle for the further integration and development of the person. Since I teach this to my students, I can hardly deny it’s also true for me. In my chart, a key configuration is Moon Sagittarius in the 8th exactly opposed to Mars Gemini in the 2nd. I grew up in a family with a mother who refused to admit the truth that she was alcoholic. Even when severely inebriated, which happened regularly, she would deny that she was drunk. If confronted with the obvious, she attacked me for being a bad son and saying things that were viciously untrue and deeply hurtful. In other words, she played the victim, seeking to induce guilt in her accuser. She was successful; it was crazy-making. And since no one else (sister, father) was willing to intervene, it left me in a state of guilt-saturated, perpetual anger. I felt frustrated and alone in attempts to heal a family wound that vastly exceeded my capacity. In retrospect, I can see that this pattern of childhood experience fits my chart perfectly. In short, it’s me, not just my family or mother. It’s my karma, and it bears consequences that unavoidably extend into adult life. Later experiences with my astrological “family” recapitulate the general pattern. Noting problems that require honest confrontation, I set about exposing them, but this merely triggers angry denials and denunciations. Howls of protest echo my inebriated mother’s counterattacks whenever I confronted her. And just as I felt unsupported by my sister and father, so I feel unsupported by my astrological colleagues, with rare exception. Clearly, this pattern of experience is the externalization of an inner state; as within, so without. Whatever residual anger is left over from my early years now manifests as frustrated attempts to engage others who oppose my efforts to address problems in the field. What can we make of this? Traditional astrologers might solemnly pronounce it’s a tragic fate from which there is no escape. Evolutionary astrologers might proclaim it’s a just karma earned from misdeeds in a prior life. I would not argue with either. But I would add that the degree to which I’m aware of the pattern empowers me to make choices in how I respond to it―choices that I otherwise could not make―and that makes all the difference. I believe inner and outer conditions are synchronistically related and constitute a feedback loop that facilitates learning. One thing I’ve learned from my pattern is that I can’t force people to see things they’re unable or unwilling to see. As a child, I tended to take it personally, as if my mother’s denial and counterattacks were evidence that either I was “bad” (hurtful, crazy) for confronting her, or she was bad (uncaring, dishonest) for denying the legitimacy of my pain. In retrospect, I can see that we were both in tremendous pain. My mother’s defensiveness toward me wasn’t personal; it was in the service of protecting her from overwhelming guilt. My perceptions and feelings were sound regardless of whether she could validate them. Likewise, if certain of my colleagues become upset with positions I’ve taken on various issues, I can’t take it personally, and there’s no point in forcing the issue. But neither can I assume that my perceptions and feelings are invalid. That someone gets upset over someone else’s opinion is not prima facie evidence that a wrong has been committed. There are plenty of historical examples that attest to this. Darwin’s work was upsetting to Christians who

77

believed in the literal truth of the Bible; Copernicus’ work was threatening to astronomers who were deeply attached to a geocentric view of the cosmos. Both were reviled, hated, and ridiculed by their colleagues. I’m not comparing myself to Darwin or Copernicus. What I am saying is that just because people get upset with a viewpoint does not necessarily constitute a moral lapse on the part of the presenter. An argument may or may not be immoral (dishonest, depraved) but should be assessed on its own merits, not on whether people are pleased with it. The challenge (and opportunity) in responding to hostile feedback is to deepen empathic connection with one’s detractors. While this is not easy when you’re up against the wall, recent events have given me pause to reflect: am I truly rude, divisive, and arrogant? Or, is the astrological community hyper-defensive in response to perceived criticisms? In whichever way the question is answered, there can be no progress toward resolution without compassion for self and other. I must accept I make mistakes; I can be blunt, opinionated, and combative; I can overstate my case. But this does not exclude the possibility that there’s an external problem as well. And if so, the work lies in seeing the connection and keeping my balance in addressing both. Upsets and Allegations The following is not intended to relitigate prior offenses, but to put in perspective an issue that I think has broader implications for us as a community. In 2002 at a NORWAC Conference, I interrupted and corrected a speaker during his lecture when he made an untrue, inflammatory comment about an article on astro-ethics that I had just written for The Mountain Astrologer. I regret interrupting the speaker. It was wrong. But the situation was more complicated than appeared. With oversight from the ISAR Board, I had recently created the ISAR Ethics Code, which was the backdrop for the article the NORWAC speaker had referenced during his talk. In that code, an injunction stated: D.3.g. Claims About Past Lives Astrologers who interpret chart symbols in terms of possible past lives assure clients that such interpretations are speculative in nature. Such interpretations do not induce unnecessary guilt or fear in the client, or state with unjustified certainty that the client is suffering from the consequences of an alleged past life action. Likewise, when writing articles or books that contain statements about past lives and astrology, authors disclose the source of their information and acknowledge the speculative nature of their claims. This section was intended to address the questionable practice, common in books and computer-generated reports, of making pronouncements about the meaning of configurations in terms of past lives. Often these “interpretations” were of a highly negative nature without acknowledging that the interpretation was entirely speculative. Since consumers had no way of differentiating meanings grounded in observable data from those that were made up whole cloth from the astrologer’s imagination, they were in a vulnerable position if they were told, for instance, that Venus square Saturn indicates a karmic debt due to “selfishness” and “misuse of love” in a past life, and that in this life the native would be doomed to “limitations, disappointment and loneliness” in their quest for love. Mind you, this is an actual interpretation from a well-known book one can still purchase. As a psychologist, I was troubled by these and similar interpretations of past lives currently being marketed by the astrological community. So, in addition to the section in the ISAR Ethics Code, I wrote an article highlighting the dangers such practices held for vulnerable clients. I did not state in the article (nor do I believe) that past-life interpretations are inherently unethical; rather, I asserted that astrologers should admit such interpretations are speculative. Once again, the article was well-researched and respectfully argued with 21 references to various authorities. And once again, it was met with howls of protest and

78

demands for apology from astrologers who identified with the practices critiqued. Chief among these was the NORWAC speaker whose apparent intention in giving his lecture was to embarrass (and silence) the author. In 2008, a similar situation unfolded following an article I wrote for the NCGR Research Journal titled “From Ancient to Postmodern Astrology”. There had been a resurgence of interest in traditional astrology during the prior two decades, which was partly in response to the sloppy, vague and imprecise nature of humanistic, psychological astrology that had emerged in the 20th century. Yet, the traditional techniques being recovered tended to be rigid, one-dimensional, and fatalistic, as characterized astrology in the first and second centuries. My intention in writing the article was to encourage caution in the uncritical acceptance and application of practices that originated 2000 years ago. By analogy, if modern dentistry became the beneficiary of an archaeological discovery of lost dentistry methods from year 2, we might expect the profession to be somewhat reticent in applying them immediately with modern patients. Again, the article was extensively researched with 41 references to authorities on the evolution of astrology. It dealt strictly with ideas and practices, not persons. Yet, once more, there were howls of protest and slashing, vituperative attacks on my character and scholarship. It was as if I touched a nerve that triggered some deep, primal anger unrelated to the merit of the article. The lynch mob erupted in full force. What’s curious about these responses is that I generally receive favorable reviews for my work. Among the hundreds of articles I’ve authored during my 40 years in the field, only three sparked controversy: questioning whether past life information can be ascertained from birthcharts; reviewing concepts in traditional astrology that lead to fatalistic interpretations; and critiquing the underlying rationale of the sidereal zodiac. In effect, I challenged certain practices that I thought were theoretically and/or ethically questionable. The offending articles are invariably characterized as “attacks” but are actually critiques, which is a legitimate form of academic writing. ‘Attack’ derives from the language of war and entails aggressive and hostile action against a person, group, or belief. The goal is subjugation of the enemy. Conversely, a critique is a detailed analysis, assessment or evaluation of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory. The goal is discernment of truth. While a critique may contain some criticism, it is not an attack unless the reviewer is so over the top with bitterness, hostility and condemnation that it clearly crosses the line. It’s worth noting that when someone accuses you of attacking a tradition that you’ve merely critiqued, what’s actually happening is they’re attacking you for doing the critique. A good example is a recent 90-minute YouTube video of my 30-minute India lecture. It was created by an astrologer who, it seems, has harbored a grudge that goes back to the aforementioned 2008 article on traditional astrology. Ten years later, he’s still out for revenge. In the video, he starts with plunging the dagger and spends the next 90 minutes twisting it. Looking Beyond the Self―Astrology’s Shadow In the wake of my lecture in India, one astrologer suggested that perhaps I embody the “shadow” of the community. I’m not exactly sure what she meant, but if the astrological community has a shadow, I suspect it has to do with a sense of badness and wrongness that’s been inculcated by centuries of scorn from science, academia, and the church. Recently I read an article about Syrian migrants flooding into Germany and causing severe stress on that country’s resources. Yet, any citizen who complains about Germany’s open-door refugee policy is immediately denounced as a Nazi. In effect, Deutschland’s shadow is its shame from WWII atrocities committed by actual Nazis. Contemporary Germans polarize to that identity by exclaiming their virtue as a compassionate, inclusive, and welcoming

79

nation. And I believe they are, but they’re also hyper-reactive to any behavior that could be construed as racist. The psychology of present day Germany illustrates how inherited shame can be a powerful force in constellating a collective shadow and shaping compensatory attitudes. As astrologers, we have inherited shame, too. We’ve been condemned by the church for nearly two millennia; rejected by science and banished from the University for three centuries; and are continually mocked by the media. Surely, our collective shadow is a deep sense of moral and intellectual inferiority. How could it be otherwise? Though I would be quick to argue that our shame is unwarranted since any objective person who takes the time to study astrology recognizes its validity. In some ways, astrologers live in a world similar to my childhood family. Unable to admit her shame, my mother tried to get me to think I was crazy, that my perceptions and experience were merely imagined, that I was wrong in what I believed to be true. The psychological term for this is “gaslighting”, which occurs when someone is manipulated into questioning the validity of their feelings and perceptions, and ultimately their sanity. Likewise, the guardians of the dominant paradigm in western culture have a vested interest in sowing doubt within the astrological community. For if it turns out we’re right, the old paradigm will topple. The stakes are high, and the guardians are not likely to relinquish power without a fight. Gaslighting is their weapon of choice. Centuries of ridicule and scorn have left deep emotional scars upon the psyche of the astrological community. Astrologers are so accustomed to defending themselves from external attacks that it makes self-evaluation difficult. Ostracized from academia, we are largely untrained in critical thinking and research protocols. The result is an insular, self-protective mindset that tends to proclaim all views as equally valid, an untenable position that no other field would ever presume to take. This was brought home during a Facebook discussion following my lecture in India. One astrologer was astonished that I critiqued the sidereal zodiac before an audience of Indian astrologers. “I can’t imagine that an Indian astrologer would be rude enough to criticize the tropical zodiac,” she sniffed. “Besides, who is so arrogant as to presume something doesn’t work in astrology?” Her statement speaks for itself. Every knowledge claim, every method and technique, “works”. Such an attitude compensates astrology’s shadow―the fear that nothing works, that we are fools, that our detractors were right all along. To keep these fears at bay, an unspoken but powerful taboo has arisen: Thou shalt not criticize anything astrological. So, what happens when the taboo is violated? What happens when one of our own questions the validity of an accepted astrological doctrine such as the sidereal zodiac? Jung called it enantiodromia, the tendency for the psyche to flip into its opposite; to be possessed by its unconscious. In our case, the persecuted becomes the persecutor, projecting upon the wrongdoer its own sins and attendant shame. Scapegoating is the technical term, the most dramatic example of which is the public lynching of individuals accused of rape or murder, impulses that are repressed within the psyche of every citizen. Figuratively speaking, a lynch mob is any angry group that leaps to punish someone they believe has committed an egregious offense, the potential for which they deny within themselves. By definition, the lynch mob exterminates its scapegoat without due process. In this case, it kills the critic. It seems to me that what we’ve been witnessing on Facebook and in letters to ISAR excoriating the author is a classic example of a lynch mob seeking a scapegoat. One

80

astrologer even suggested I should be killed; others that I be banned from astrological conferences forever; another called me a sociopath. The reactions were so extreme and disproportionate to any actual offense that I cannot help but think there’s more going on than meets the eye. What happened following my lecture is an ancient, primitive, and frightening phenomenon that seems rooted in a community’s need to expiate its shame and guilt by finding a scapegoat and engaging in an act of ritual murder. A Pervasive, Irrational Bias In subsequent discussions on Facebook that dealt with statistical research, I was struck by the pervasive bias amongst astrologers that both zodiacs can work. There was no particular logic to these pronouncements; just a fervent conviction that somehow both zodiacs must be valid. At first, I suspected this was due to an aversion to telling an entire group of believers that they are wrong. But I think now it has more to do with the aforementioned taboo: Thou shalt not criticize anything astrological. I take it for granted that every field makes mistakes. This was driven home during my years in graduate school. I learned that the history of science is littered with the corpses of discarded theories, some of which were around for thousands of years before being pronounced defunct. This is how knowledge advances; there’s no shame in it. Because I believe two zodiacs that contradict one another cannot both be right, my inquiry began with a question: could a mistake have occurred that resulted in a splitting of one zodiac into two? I then endeavored to determine where, when, and how the mistake might have occurred. This seemed a more logical way to proceed than leaping to the warm and fuzzy conclusion that both zodiacs are correct and then coming up with a tortured rationale for why this is so. We should at least be willing to consider that one side or the other is wrong if that’s what the evidence indicates. For the Sidereal Zodiac to be Valid What would it take for the sidereal zodiac to be valid? Let us consider the matter, but first there are some facts to face. That the constellations were originally linked to the equinoctial and solsticial points is beyond dispute. Likewise, it seems self-evident that sign meanings are rooted in their association with seasonal processes from which later, analogous meanings were derived. We also know that the Babylonian New Year began with the first new Moon closest to the vernal equinox in the constellation Aries. Since it heralded the renewal of life, the vernal equinox (spring) was a natural place to start the year. However, the stars that formed the backdrop to that date in the 1st millennium BC were irrelevant since they would only be there temporarily. Within a thousand years, an entirely new group of stars would surround the vernal point. Yet, the meaning of the vernal point does not change; spring is still spring. Clearly, what gave tropical Aries its meaning―vitality, boldness, spontaneity, fresh starts, an instinct for survival―was its association with the vernal point, not the constellation of stars that surrounded it. For the sidereal zodiac to be valid, we would have to assume that by some miracle the stars that comprised the constellation Aries had then, and will continue to have forever, exactly the same meaning and effect as the period of time indissolubly associated with the vernal equinox. In other words, the meaning and power of sidereal Aries is entirely independent of the vernal point and will continue to have the same meaning and power long after the vernal point has precessed from it. Moreover, by this same miracle coincidence, every other constellation had exactly the same quality and meaning as the season to which it once corresponded; and would continue eternally to have this meaning despite no longer being in alignment with the season to which it corresponded when the zodiac originated. This implies, for example, that the 30° sector of

81

stars surrounding the winter solstice in 500 BC had a meaning and power that just happened at the time to be a perfect match to the quality of winter that is indissolubly associated with the sign Capricorn―conservative, cold, formal, a penchant for structure, and so on. Even after the constellation Capricorn no longer coincided with the winter solstice, its attendant stars would continue forever to confer winter-like attributes to anyone born with the Sun in that constellation. This is what the sidereal zodiac requires us to believe. The sidereal argument (if it can even be called that) begs credulity. The claim that star groups have eternal meanings and powers consistent with the seasons to which they corresponded when the zodiac first originated is farfetched, to put it mildly. It is more reasonable to assume that constellations were artificial constructs, expedient groupings of stars that provided a visible means for measuring planetary positions and forecasting seasonal changes. In all likelihood, myths and meanings projected upon constellations derived from the misperception that they were causal factors in determining seasonal conditions and analogous sociological phenomena. In saying this, I realize I am violating astrology’s first commandment: Thou shalt not criticize anything astrological. Yet, even in the truncated form presented above, I would think any reasonable person would perceive there’s a certain logic to the argument. It’s rational, coherent, defensible. So, why not simply have a respectful conversation about where we might disagree? As we shall see in the following section, it’s not so easy anymore, for anyone. A Postmodern Straitjacket It would be naive to think that astrological debates are not subsumed within a larger, cultural matrix that establishes rules for what is permissible to think, say and do. When I was at graduate school in the 70’s and 80’s, my first courses were in epistemology and the history of science. Our professors wanted us to learn how to think critically and, ultimately, tackle unsolved problems in a chosen topic area. Research would ideally culminate with presentation of a paper at a conference, which might spark further discussion and debate. If someone disagreed with a presentation, they were encouraged to attempt to explain, using logic, evidence, facts, and substantive arguments, why they disagreed. By the 1990’s, all that began to change. This change has been the subject of numerous studies in itself. Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind was a bellwether and heralded a wave of similar books including Bruce Bawer’s more recent The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind. Bloom, Bawer, and other authors assert there’s been a breakdown in norms governing academic discourse over the last decades, especially regarding tolerance of opposing views. Some speakers invited to college campuses are demonized to the point that students are coddled and insulated in “safe spaces” from speech they find threatening―or, more ominously, these speakers are prevented from even entering the campus due to violent protests. All of this is traceable to the rise of a pernicious doctrine―postmodernism―that not only has infected college campuses but also western culture as a whole. Postmodernism started as a legitimate corrective to the excesses of modernism but eventually morphed into a caricature of itself, as so often occurs with compensatory movements. Essentially, postmodernism divides the world into oppressors and oppressed and sees all discourse as a power struggle between them. Oppressors are those in a position of power; the oppressed those who comparatively lack power, which is invariably defined as a consequence of victimization by the powerful. The oppressed are never in any way responsible for their own condition. They are, by definition, victims. The power of truth to shape moral behavior is undercut by postmodernism’s core edict: there is no final truth, merely points of view originating in different places and times. All truths are rationally equivalent; all acts are morally equivalent. Nothing is right or wrong except

82

thinking makes it so, and there is no privileged perspective. Tolerance reigns supreme over all other virtues and renders superfluous any sort of moral judgment. Intolerance is the only real crime. Fairness and equality supersede evaluations of superior/inferior, better/worse, or any form of hierarchy based on merit. Inclusivity and diversity supplant meritocracy. Equal opportunity is replaced by equal outcome; everyone gets a trophy because feeling unequal is not an option. In short, protection of feelings takes precedence over discernment of truth. Postmodernism is a form of absolutism that presumes a position of superiority over conventional ideologies (religious and political) that are uniformly defined as authoritarian, dogmatic, and oppressive of minorities. Otherwise known as ideological fascism, it has spawned the “I Am Offended” movement like cholera on an infected ship. That postmodernism is itself merely a perspective is largely unrecognized by its exponents. Yet, to the extent it remains unrecognized, it compels allegiance under threat of being labeled morally inferior or mentally ill―selfish, heartless, racist, misogynistic, colonialist, supremacist, islamophobic, xenophobic. The list goes on. Clearly, postmodernism has found its way to astrology. The chief complaint regarding my talk in India was that it was insensitive by virtue of my conclusion that the sidereal zodiac is an historical error. Again, in the world of postmodernism, judgments of right and wrong are divisive, offensive, and downright mean. Some critics alleged that I assumed a “posture of cultural superiority” and displayed “blatant disrespect for the culture of the people in whose home he was a guest.” One astrologer even charged that my talk exemplified colonial powers oppressing the local natives. I was fully aware of the sensitivity of critiquing the sidereal zodiac while in India. However, it seemed to me that protecting Indian astrologers from challenging views is akin to treating them as children. It’s the worst kind of condescension because it cloaks itself as moral superiority. And that’s the paradox: to not give the talk would be insulting to Indian astrologers, for it implies they are too weak to tolerate disagreement and too ignorant to engage in reasoned debate. I categorically reject this view. One might think that an international conference is the proper venue for discussion of problems that transcend cultures and remain unsolved within a field. But western astrologers, well-versed in the “I Am Offended” movement, screamed I should apologize for offending my hosts! In doing so, they were marching lockstep in obeisance to the postmodern ethos that feelings are more important than truth. A Wizard Attacks One western astrologer who was present at the lecture was especially offended. This astrologer, who likes to dress up in wizard’s clothes and call himself “Merlin”, wrote an open letter to the astrological community about how “shocked and dismayed” he was in response to the delivery of my lecture, as well as its content. His harangue is worth consideration because it demonstrates the extremes to which some astrologers will go to silence speech they don’t like. Although a tropical astrologer, he has made public his conviction that both zodiacs are valid; thus, he has turf to defend, and is willing to do so by denigrating the character of those who openly disagree with him.

83

He begins by criticizing my first slide, a cartoon depicting a beleaguered elephant on a couch in a psychiatrist’s office saying, “I’m right there in the room, and no one even acknowledges me.” Of course, it’s a metaphor of the two-zodiac problem. The wizard thought this was “appalling” and demonstrated “blatant ignorance and disrespect” for Indian culture given that I shared the stage with a statue of Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed god of the Hindu faith. Yet, had he read the accompanying article published in the proceedings of the conference, he would have noted that I wrote: I’m thinking this could be Ganesha, the Hindu Elephant Headed God. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As we gather on these pages to discuss astrology, which is rooted in the zodiac, it is perhaps fitting that Ganesha should be seeking therapy for his experience of not being acknowledged. For his predicament symbolizes a difficult topic we often try to avoid, perhaps out of politeness, or simply because of its mind-numbing complexity. Yet, he also symbolizes precisely those attributes necessary to face it, if not resolve it. My decision to use the cartoon reflected my faith that Indian astrologers have a sense of humor and a capacity to appreciate metaphor. I also had faith (wrongly, it turns out) that if someone is going to criticize my position on the sidereal zodiac that he would take 40 minutes to actually read the article on which the lecture was based. He was certainly aware of its existence.

84

The gist of this astrologer’s criticism was, in his own words: Astrology must be inclusive, not exclusive. Just because a technique or theory doesn’t work for you is not reason to take it away from those who use it successfully. Apart from how a technique or theory can be taken away simply by questioning its validity, the wizard’s argument implies that if someone uses a technique and believes it works, then it does work; if they believe the theory that the Moon is made of green cheese, then it ismade of green cheese. Practice and belief equates to truth. Case closed. By this logic, we would still be using leeches to treat patients with pneumonia. My critic’s thinking epitomizes the attitude that all views in astrology are equally valid. And since no one is ever wrong, there is no permission to ask hard questions, challenge certain presumptions, or offer arguments as to why one view may be more correct or helpful than another. Instead, there is a circle-the-wagons mentality and an attempt to silence unwanted speech through disparagement and ridicule. According to this astrologer, he was “horrified” by my behavior; I am divisive, ignorant, rude, disrespectful, judgmental, guilty of “infantile thinking”, and have “damaged our community.” He alleges that many of these charges have to do with the “tone” of my delivery―how I say things rather than what I say. But I think this is disingenuous. What is actually meant by tone is any statement that disagrees with a statement by someone else. We’re back to the central taboo of astrology: no criticism allowed. When detractors criticize my tone, I suspect this merely conceals the true source of their animus, which is the nature of the lecture itself―a critique. For a critique violates astrology’s first commandment: Thou shalt not criticize anything astrological. Conflating academic discourse with bad behavior is essentially a gag order on discussion of important issues we face as a field. Hurling slurs, vilifying, and name-calling doesn’t enlighten, inform, or educate. Indeed, it undermines those goals by stifling speech around precisely those topics that should be debated. The wizard’s own thinking on the two-zodiac problem is instructive on multiple levels. First, he makes a number of trivial and baseless criticisms, such as citing a slide that states there are 28 nakshatras. Wrong, he trumpets! There are only 27! Actually, there are two systems, one 27, the other 28. These and similar allegations illustrate how apologists for the sidereal zodiac will leap at any opportunity to pick holes in my argument even while doing so from a position of ignorance. The wizard’s most thunderous reproach focuses on my citation of Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction. Aristotle’s Law states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. If this is so, I argued, then two zodiacs that assign different meanings to the same dates cannot both be true, since they obviously contradict one another. But the wizard evokes the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics as an illustration that Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction is wrong. Subatomic particles appear to coexist simultaneously as both particle and wave! It follows that the zodiac can likewise coexist simultaneously as both a seasonal and a constellational structure! This all sounds very profound until you disrobe the wizard’s argument and reveal the vacuous reality underneath. Wave-particle duality does not refute Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction, the critical part of which is: “in the same sense at the same time”. In quantum physics, whether light is perceived as a particle or a wave depends upon how the experiment is set up. An experimental setup cannot depict light as a particle and a wave in the same sense

85

at the same time; it can only measure one or the other. As Werner Heisenberg put it, “We do not study nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” More importantly, whatever legitimacy the wave-particle duality may have on a subatomic level, it does not uniformly extend to the macro level of planets and stars. As has been often stated, quantum mechanics doesn’t contradict Newton’s laws, it merely corrects them at the infinitesimally small subatomic level. The upshot is that wave-particle duality does not disprove Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction; nor does it offer any support for the extended claim that a single zodiac can propagate in both constellational and seasonal forms. Despite the wizard’s protestations, the inherent contradiction of sidereal and tropical zodiacs cannot be explained away through banal allusions to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics; you cannot sprinkle pixie dust on your keyboard and utter the magic words “wave-particle duality” and expect, Poof! ―a 2000-year old problem will simply disappear. As an illustration of Aristotle’s Law, a more telling example is the Ptolemaic conception of a geocentric cosmos versus the newer Copernican heliocentric model. For thousands of years, it seemed that the Sun moved round the earth, and virtually everyone believed it to be so. But Copernicus proved it was an illusion; it is the earth that orbits the Sun, not vice versa. His model utterly contradicted the earlier conception and there was no going back. This is but one example, but it makes the case that contradictions of the sort we are dealing with here―two zodiacs that assign different meanings to the same dates―are inherently irreconcilable. Both cannot be true. The fanciful nature of the wizard’s attempt to salvage the integrity of both systems highlights the lack of critical thinking that pervades the field. “Let’s be inclusive,” he seems to be saying; all apparent contradictions are simply misunderstandings; all statements that seem to disagree are, in fact, equally valid. No one is ever wrong about anything. But this is sheer folly. The notion that astrologers are not prone to the same errors as every other field is simply a defense that compensates astrology’s shadow: the fear that we lack all credibility. Despite its populist appeal, there is a certain desperation in the wizard’s line of reasoning, like a man flailing about and sinking ever deeper into a quagmire of inanity. Conversely, I’ve been accused of thinking “like a skeptic,” the arch enemy of astrologers everywhere. While I would be the first to admit that some skeptics go too far (atheism, scientism), I would add that astrologers don’t go far enough (gullibility, wishful thinking). There’s a middle ground where self-monitoring and evidence-based practice is critically important for any profession that aspires to legitimacy. We can’t have it both ways: bemoan our current status as the gold standard of superstition while at the same time steadfastly refuse to question anything a fellow astrologer asserts as true. The Importance of Research Astrology cannot proceed as a real profession if we do not remain open to refutation. The primary advantage of scientific inquiry lies with its efficiency. Hypotheses can be tested, retained, or discarded according to their merit. Knowledge thus accumulates that is relatively free from erroneous assumptions. In effect, research is a kind of corrective procedure, an intellectual screening process that eliminates fallacies, deceptions, and general errors of thinking so that they do not tangle up our accumulating body of knowledge and lead us astray. Now, I want to address a side issue that sprouted from the lecture I gave in India. It pertains to the implicit delegitimization of what in the social sciences is called ‘qualitative research’, which is the methodology I applied in researching the two-zodiac problem. Several detractors allege that my lecture was completely lacking in “objective, empirical evidence”. But what does this really mean?

86

Research methods can be roughly organized into two broad categories: quantitative and qualitative, each of which defines evidence differently. Quantitative methods involve statistical analysis in an attempt to establish a connection between a causative (or corollary) factor and event-outcome in terms of a precise numerical value. Conversely, qualitative methods make no attempt to measure or count, but rather try to increase our understanding of a phenomenon through descriptive analyses and interpretive procedures that build a complex, holistic picture of the topic under study. Whereas quantitative methods are ideal for the study of relatively simple systems that are self-contained, such as exist in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry), qualitative methods are more appropriate for complex topics that involve multiple, intersecting factors that evolve over time, like human beings. For this reason, qualitative methods are typically utilized in social sciences like psychology, anthropology, and history. It follows they are also appropriate for astrology. For example, a qualitative method might explore how different sectors of the sky came to have discernable meanings for human communities. How did these meanings evolve, and for what reasons? The format for a qualitative study follows the traditional approach of presenting a problem, asking a question, collecting data to answer the question, analyzing the data, and answering the question. The question, in effect, is the hypothesis, which is a sort of provisional theory, guess, or supposition that must eventually be researched to determine whether evidence supports or refutes it. For example, my approach to the two-zodiac problem began with the question: could a mistake have occurred that resulted in a splitting of one zodiac into two? From this, I derived the hypothesis: A mistake occurred at a particular point in history that resulted in the splitting of an original zodiac into two separate, contradictory zodiacs, only one of which is valid. The nature of one’s hypothesis is the most important factor in determining methodological approach. To test my hypothesis, I decided the hermeneutic method was most suitable. Hermeneutics is a qualitative method that focuses on interpretation; explanation refers to the meaning behind the analysis of data. This meaning, in turn, is evaluated in terms of whether it confirms, disconfirms, or leads to revision of the hypothesis. Hermeneutics allows for analysis of a phenomenon from a variety of different angles in hopes of arriving at a broad, comprehensive understanding. The researcher gathers relevant factual data, analyzes it inductively, infers its meaning, and describes the results in persuasive language―that is, in terms that attempt to convince the reader of the rightness of the interpretation. The purpose is not to prove the ultimate truth or falseness of a given doctrine, but to affect our degree of belief. In researching the two-zodiac problem, my objective was twofold: 1) discern whether there is historical evidence from various texts that lead one to reasonably conclude a mistake occurred that resulted in the splitting of an original zodiac into two contradictory versions; and 2) determine whether evidence supports the hypothesis that one or the other zodiac constitutes an error. First, I collected data pertinent to my question. This included anthropological studies of the Neolithic period (10,000 – 2000 BC), archaeoastronomy, origins of the zodiac as revealed through cuneiform tablets, the history of western and eastern astronomy, Babylonian

87

mythology, the development of calendars, Hellenistic astrological texts, and relevant parts of contemporary astrology. Second, I analyzed the data in terms of the “hermeneutic circle,” a dialectical movement that goes from interpretive hypothesis, to evidence, back to hypothesis, and round and round. In so doing, my hypothesis was continually adjusted in light of new data until sufficient information was gathered that allowed for a reasoned conclusion; that is, an interpretation that connects the dots and gives a coherent meaning to the evidence. This is hermeneutics. This was the method I utilized in doing my study. I have taken some time to describe the hermeneutic method in order to address the question of what constitutes evidence? In qualitative research, evidence can be any verifiable factor that is pertinent to the hypothesis, such as statements in authoritative texts. Such evidence is then utilized in building a case and arriving at a conclusion. Conversely, in quantitative research, evidence is defined strictly in terms of statistical results; that is, evidence is the outcome of the experiment. For example, Robert Currey writes: In the scientific method, evidence should be empirical, not historical assumptions and claims that are debatable. He provides no objective evidence. Currey further asserts that my argument was “simplistic” while admitting that he never read the actual article. Naturally, a 30-minute lecture would have to be simplistic in comparison to the 9000-word article on which it was based. More importantly, Currey seems to ignore the meaning and value of evidence in the broader context of qualitative research. While the conclusion of any study is debatable if one can come up with a better argument based on existent evidence, to suggest that that my conclusion is based only on “historical assumptions and claims that are debatable” is misleading because it delegitimizes the very real evidence on which the argument was built. There are many evidential facts disclosed in my article that are not mere assumptions. For example: � Obsession with equinoctial and solsticial points was ubiquitous in the ancient world, as reflected in the alignments of sacred monuments. � At the inception of the Babylonian calendar in the 1st millennium BC, the solar year was divided into four seasons of three months each with the equinoctial and solstitial points located in the middle of months I, IV, VII, and X. This later became the basis for a twelve 30° per/sign zodiac organized around the equinoctial and solsticial points. � The Babylonians began their year at the new moon closest to the vernal equinox in the constellation Aries. � Zodiacal signs, constellations and months were often conflated in cuneiform tablets during the 2nd half of the first millennium BC. � There was no 12-sign zodiac in India prior to importing Hellenistic astrology in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. � The Greek astronomer Hipparchus discovered precession in 134 BC.

88

� There is no formal mention of precession in any Indian astrological or astronomical text prior to the 10th century, 1000 years after Hipparchus. � Signs, houses, and aspects uniformly derive their meanings from multiples of 30° angles, which are phase relations within whole (360°) cycles – annual, diurnal and synodic – that have nothing to do with constellations. I could go on, but the above should suffice to make my point. While these facts require further elaboration and synthesis to appreciate their significance, that they constitute objective evidence in support of my hypothesis is relatively certain in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It is difficult to know whether Currey’s criticisms are solely due to a preference for quantitative methods, or because he thought my lecture in India culturally insensitive. As he put it, “Tolerance of diversity within the practice of astrology is not a PC posture, but rational humanity.” This implies that a speaker is intolerant merely by concluding on the basis of historical evidence that a doctrine is in error. Once again, protection of feelings takes precedence over discernment of truth. One seemingly fortunate development in the wake of my lecture was the launching of the Kepler Conference Online Research Forum for discussion of “The 2-Zodaic Problem”. However, their opening statement reads: At a recent conference in India, controversial claims were made for the superiority of the western, tropical zodiac over the sidereal zodiac used by Indian astrologers. Ironically, this claim directly conflicts with the evidence we presented in our lecture at the same conference. We introduced a range of experiments using sound research methodologies, that lead to very different conclusions. Unfortunately, in all the debate that has raged ever since, there has been little to no recourse to any evidence whatsoever….So we invite everyone affected by this controversy to please join us in an open-minded, even-handed, evidence-based investigation of this ‘problem.’ The organizers seem to be implying that only experimental, quantitative “sound” methodologies have merit in addressing the two-zodiac problem. Other methods (namely, qualitative) offer “little to no recourse to any evidence whatsoever.” But as we have seen, this depends on how you define evidence. As Courtney Roberts put it, “At this point, we’re really only interested in empirical evidence and solid methodologies. In my experience, most people vastly overestimate the power of their own ‘reasoning’…” Courtney may be right about people overestimating their capacity to reason. She also seems to be saying that reason and evidence (facts) are dichotomous; but if so, this is a false dichotomy. For reason’s as dependent on facts as a tree its roots. Without facts, an argument cannot long stand and will topple over when faced with the stiff winds of opposition. Further, in a call for papers to be presented at the Kepler 2019 Conference, there appears to be the usual bias toward the co-validity of both zodiacs. We actively encourage cooperation between Western & Vedic astrologers and seek to build upon the results and relationships established in Kepler 2.0 & our forums on the 2-Zodiac problem, especially projects identifying the relative strengths and weaknesses, and the combined potentials of both systems. The above statement seems to be predicated on the presumption that both zodiacs are valid, which is precisely what is at issue. While bias is implicit in the nature of a research question, it’s another matter to state that a conference is primarily interested in research that validates the belief that both zodiacs are equally true. I could be wrong about this, and it may be that Kepler Forums are not biased against qualitative approaches to the two-zodiac problem, and

89

they are equally open to research that supports one or the other zodiac being invalid. But if so, it would be helpful to make this more explicit. Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that there are a number of researchers who, in testing each zodiac with quantitative methods, found support for the tropical zodiac but not the sidereal―Robert Currey, Kyosti Tarvainen, and Vincent Godbout among them. There is allegedly research that leads in the opposite direction as well, but I do not yet know enough to comment further. It is unfortunate that in an area where we could be inclusive as a community―astrological research―there seems to be a snubbing of qualitative approaches, as if they have no value or relevance to the two-zodiac problem. Yet, the two methods are not mutually exclusive. Experimental results are often used as components of qualitative studies and, vice versa, qualitative studies can lead to experimental designs for more focused inquiry. The two methods are complementary, with each having its own strengths and weaknesses. Although I believe there are inherent difficulties in testing the validity of tropical and sidereal zodiacs via experimental designs, I would not discourage anyone from trying. The larger point is that evidence comes in many shapes and forms and is not limited to experimental results. With qualitative methods, reason connects facts and places them in a wider, more comprehensive framework. Facts become pillars in a structure of meaning. This view holds that a conclusive understanding cannot be grasped by a myopic obsession with the concrete results of particular experiments, for this misses the forest for the trees. Truth requires a capacity for abstract thought, an ability to connect the dots, to see the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is worth repeating that astrology cannot proceed as a real profession if we do not remain open to refutation, by whatever method. Such a critical and discriminating approach to knowledge assures that our “truths” will continue to evolve. A Footnote If people disagree with my choice to give that lecture in India, that’s okay; we can agree to disagree. But to take it to another level and publicly excoriate the speaker and demand his ouster as Ethics Chair in an organization he’s served for 16 years; well, that’s symptomatic of a deeper issue. So long as protection of feelings takes precedence over discernment of truth, our freedom to discuss astrology’s real problems will remain compromised. * * * * * POST NAVIGATION The Two-Zodiac Problem: Toward an Empathic Understandng

Transiting Saturn Opposed Natal Sun 23 thoughts on “Are We Free To Discuss Astrology’s Real Problems?” 1. Erika Zagar August 23, 2018 at 3:20 am

90

Dear Glenn, many congratulations for a fantastic lecture and deep minded article and especially for the bravery of both. I believe the astrological community has to vastly expand in educational level and critical thinking. If not, we will never manage to bring astrology back to the university and heel our long lasting wounds. Reply 2. Tara Nikita July 27, 2018 at 2:22 pm Hi Glenn, I have followed this matter with great interest, removed from it all, in my home, Jamaica. Thank you for your very considered and detailed response here. It was very clear to me from the outset that this was very much about people’s feelings and sensitivities being triggered. Astrology aside, it seems to be a more pronounced feature of living in the 21st century: everyone is protective of their fragile sensitivities, and we are turning ourselves into pretzels so as not to “offend” anyone and hurt their feelings. This in the name of a spurious “inclusivity.” (oh, we welcome all views and we respect everyone!). Regarding the 90 minute video you referenced here, I happened to stumble upon it a few weeks ago, and I was challenged to get past the first 15 minutes. It was obvious that this video had less to do with genuine astrological debate and discussion, but it descended into mean-spirited comments that were entirely superfluous to the subject at hand. I have always found this person’s arrogance most off-putting (even before knowledge of any “history” you may have had with this person). As an astrological counselor, I am principally concerned with the people I serve, and helping to facilitate a process that has genuine therapeutic benefit. As such I am impatient with and turned off by the catty intellectualism and infighting between astrologers…when things become more about their individual egos rather than bringing more rigor to the subject. Thank you for your openness and honesty here, and for the contribution you continue to make to a discipline we all love. Reply 3. Nicole Ines Harnisch (Schwanenberg) June 7, 2018 at 10:00 am Dear Glenn, long time your news where waiting in my mailbox – now I read your article. WOW! What a journey… I agree with you about the topic with the the sidereal zodiac and about the danger with the karmic assumptions. I always questioned it – from my very first beginning dealing with astrology 27 years ago – not because of research but because of logic! Very interessting the bridge you made to postmodernism. I would love my english (writing) to be better to share more thougts… Interessting that I remember my feelings about an article you wrote (I forgot the topic): I ended up in total resistance: “He is wrong – I´m right”. So I guess you have this capacity, to really challange by your thoughts and words – how brave! You have all my symphaties for what you went through! How good that you are there! I miss wake astrologers so much! Thats why I kind of withdraw from the scene… I really honor your work, your exellent intelligence, your consciousness and your astrological wisdom. Go on Glenn! Thanks a lot for what you do for our beloved and widely misunderstood/misused astrology! warm blessings, Nicole (Berlin)

91

Reply 4. Kathleen Welch April 27, 2018 at 11:39 pm Whew…So sorry to hear about this struggle, but so grateful that you’re willing and eminently able to put yourself in the ring, Glenn. Your courage, insightfulness and integrity are awe-inspiring. Thank you for the ground you’re breaking. Here’s a fun quote from Arthur Schopenhauer: “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as being self-evident.” And another, even more fun, by Gandhi: “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” Kudos, admiration and respect to you. Reply 5. Teodora T. April 17, 2018 at 8:42 pm I would suggest to all the critics, study the matter thoroughly and do the research like Glenn did before saying a word. It must have been a gigantic work! I believe Glenn deserves a lot of respect for standing up and fighting for the truth. It could be his own truth, but it is well spoken and perfectly defended. In order to be accepted more seriously, astrology really needs fighters like him. Reply 6. Brani April 11, 2018 at 2:23 pm Very well balanced follow up of the events. You spoke with just the right amount of mind and emotion, honest and open-minded without abdicating your right to hold and express strong opinions. It will be interesting to see whether after this period of reflection the debate will take the form and shape it should have taken initially. I truly hope so. I am very proud and pleased with the way you handled this injustice. Reply 7. Pat Paquette April 10, 2018 at 1:55 pm WHOA! I’m sorry to hear about this, Glenn. I agree that the emotional charge is indicative of a deeper issue. I see the collective pattern, which you touch on here. And frankly, that worries me a lot more than the “shadow” of the astrology community. Intolerance for facts that dispute the official narrative – the effective shutdown of free speech – has brought us to the brink of WWIII. You have reason to be proud of yourself for having the courage to make that presentation. However, whereas you may see it as overcoming individual karma, I see it as an expression of the collective. As the structures of an old cycle break down, there’s an inevitable attempt to keep them propped up, at all costs. It’s the job of the disruptors to kick out the rotten scaffolding. Reply 8. Karine Dilanian April 9, 2018 at 5:40 pm Dear Glenn, Thank you for your actual and analitical article. I’d like to ask your permission to translate it into Russian for the Russian ISAR members as well as for the thoughtful students of astrology. With warm regards, Karine

92

Reply 9. Elke April 9, 2018 at 3:31 am As usual, a well-researched and thoroughly considered article with logical arguments and refutations. I am particularly struck by your humility, your ability to admit you are not infallible as a human being, all the while holding yourself accountable to those high ethical standards you try to teach or speak of. Sometimes the best teachers are the ones who are most human, and I feel you fall into that category. This article is more impressive than the zero logical arguments coming from the other side. Such engagement in intellectual discourse is hopefully prodded along slowly via pitchfork by this event in order to validate premises in astrology so they can “stick better” or hold greater validity. On top of it, I love having material to work with that lessens my astrologer’s shadow and which I can fall back upon with confidence. What resonated most with me personally was your courage to call out those who wronged you and to slay your dragons skillfully, gently while fully standing in your power. Again, you modelled how to argue well and proper and I am proud to have learned yet another important lesson from you: we do not need to compromise our integrity just because someone disagrees with us! Reply 10. Randall April 9, 2018 at 1:07 am Your very thoughtful and well researched article is a monument to original thought. I have seen the Vedic folks do amazing things with their tools and I had always felt Western was the younger cousin. Reply 11. Robert Tulip April 9, 2018 at 12:38 am Hello Glenn, great article. The idea that Greek astrology became fossilized in India with a simplistic version, ignoring the underlying physics of the seasons, is very plausible. Reply 12. Ema Kurent April 8, 2018 at 5:35 pm Much appreciated, Glenn. You have had my wholehearted and publicly expressed support from the start, as you well know. You gave a superb lecture and I am really sorry for what happened later. I tried to help the best I could, to little or no avail. The sad consequence is that I, too, lost friends and supporters, but I don’t really mind. Those with good values will stay, for others it is better to be removed from my life. Reply 13. Robert Hull April 8, 2018 at 4:39 pm Dr. Perry, I am terrifically impressed with how you have handled this – in both the academic and therapeutic modes. While, as an occasional amateur visitor to the astrological world, I have very little capacity to weigh the merits of this dispute, I believe your response will stand

93

the test of time as a model of how we should all behave professionally and personally. As an Adult Child of an Alcoholic family, I especially appreciate your self-insight into how your childhood may be influencing your current life, and your candor in sharing it with the wider public of your followers. BRAVO! Bob Vice President for Research (Retired) Cerebral Palsy Research Foundation Wichita, Kansas Reply 14. Trace Westlake April 8, 2018 at 1:36 pm Thank-you Glenn. I have learned so much from reading this thoughtful account. My hope is, that astrologers will read this and be inspired to ponder, reflect, and share boldly, just as you have, for the love of astrology. Let us look at where we have different ideas, opinions, thoughts, feelings, and explore them, and not be afraid of challenges. This is how we discover, learn and grow. It not only makes for interesting discussions, but can also deepened our knowledge and respect for astrology and our fellow astrologers. Reply 15. Donald Whitney April 8, 2018 at 12:14 pm Thank you, Glenn. I especially enjoyed your take on the distinction between qualitative vs quantitative research approaches. Reply 16. Eliane Herdani April 8, 2018 at 9:05 am Dear Glenn, kudos on such detailed and profound knowledge based writing. Being an astrologer and a psychotherapist myself I do believe that there is a solution for the 2 zodiacs conundrum. I believe that the solution lies in empowering our clients. Astrology has a strong belief component, as such it has an overlap with the world of spiritual belief systems and practices. The fact that one spiritual belief system gives comfort to one person, but not for another, can be applied for the 2 zodiac issue. We should educate our clients and transfer to them the power to make the choice of which system has a stronger resonance within their souls. Ultimately what both systems are trying to achieve is give people some awareness, guidance, hope and solace. Haven’t we done our part in making the world a better place if our clients get those? And does it really matter through which belief system this was achieved? Thank you for starting the conversation!!!! Reply 1. Glenn Perry April 8, 2018 at 3:18 pm Thanks for your comment, Eliane. My only thought here is that efficacy of treatment is not evidence for the validity of the underlying theory. They are two different things, and while both matter, it’s important not to conflate them. Just because a treatment seems to “work” in providing comfort or relief is not sufficient reason to accept it’s underlying rationale. Truth is worth pursuing for its own sake.

94

17. Raewyn Brown April 7, 2018 at 8:40 pm The truth should be exposed , otherwise we are mislead in some ways , good on Glenn for bringing it to light , surely it has to be food for thought. Reply 18. Julie Grant April 7, 2018 at 7:59 pm Glenn, I found your talk and this article to meet and even exceed the high ethical and intellectual standards I have come to expect from your work. I share your concerns about post-modernism and its demise of intellectual tolerance and debate. I hope the courage you have shown in confronting this culture in astrology will pay dividends for the field going forward. I take inspiration from your strength and willingness to put yourself out there. As you say in your article, giving your audience the benefit of speaking your truth, in a spirit of intellectual inquiry, was a sign of respect, not disrespect. I see it as honorable. Reply 19. Celia Marion April 7, 2018 at 7:27 pm You covered a lot of territory in this, Glenn! I’m glad you included mention of the value of qualitative research. I may be wrong, but there seems to be an increasing preference for quantitative research, as if that were the only way to prove the validity of astrology. I have been concerned that the topics of such research, in an effort to be “scientific,” may lend to more deterministic, mechanistic thinking in astrology….in the guise of being able to be more “helpful” to clients. I also appreciated your presentation of the increasing and damaging movement towards PC and feelings over objective thinking and reflective dialogue. You shared and explained a great deal here, and it’s a long read; however, I, for one, appreciate your example of courage and wisdom. Not an easy path to walk. Reply 20. Steve April 7, 2018 at 7:26 pm Interesting and well researched article. What ever you do Glenn, don’t try and solve the correct house system! Less you will be cast into the out darkness of the astrological community! LOL Reply 21. Jane McDermott April 7, 2018 at 6:25 pm I know very little about astrology, just the basics. I read through your whole article and tried to understand as much as I could. From someone who knows so little of astrology, your article seemed to make so much sense to me. It has also been confusing to me, tropical versus sidereal, and your words seemed to explain it better to me. I also agree that people should be willing to agree to disagree without attacking the one trying to offer a different opinion. Reply 22. Michael O'reilly April 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm

95

Hey Glenn, awesome, but long winded article. I totally agree with your analysis of the two zodiacs. As for the “past-lives” faction, I guess I’m part of that because I see how accurate the Lunar Nodes are.However, I generally couch my interpretation of these as speculative, and that the nodes could also refer to DNA, or family inheritances. Anyway, I applaud your stance and wish you best of luck

96

------------------------