by Robert Wilkinson
There are many who think that the "literal constellations" are the "true Astrology," and that the zodiac as we use it in so-called "Tropical Astrology" is not real. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is in a response to many years of questions about the subject. Not to sound too much like Andy Rooney, but....
It's true that the constellations have shifted somewhat over thousands of years, but constellations are really only a group of stars that someone sometime a long time ago said looked like something. And it's a fact that no one in the world actually knows exactly when the divergence in relative position between the constellations and the zodiac began, or how far the precession of the Equinoxes actually has moved in terms of degrees.
That's why there are many Vedic schools of Sidereal Astrology, and none of them agree about how many degrees to subtract from the current zodiacal positions. In my experience, while Vedic Astrology is remarkably accurate (and very deterministic!) in terms of life phases using Periods, Sub-Periods, and Sub-sub Periods, in most of its forms it is not as accurate or useful as Western Astrology in showing how to master the evolution of personality into Spiritual Adulthood.
Also confounding the issue of the divergence between the constellations and the zodiac is the fact that there are 14 constellations that touch the ecliptic, not 12. There is a school of Western Astrology that uses 14 signs, including Cetus and Ophiuchus, but it's a relatively obscure branch. (I look at 14 of anything yielding 7 dual "pulses," but that's another whole subject involving approaching reality exploring different potential manifestations of number dynamics expressed in group functions.)
Along similar lines, the number of constellations in the zodiac has changed over time. At least one constellation is of relatively recent creation, if we are to believe the ancient records. It is recorded that Libra was arbitrarily carved out of an extremely large constellation called "Virgo-Scorpio" after our Ancient Wisdom Sister planet Venus arrived in our Solar System many thousands of years ago.
The ancients did have a tradition of honoring celestial visitors. What better way than to create a group of stars representing Her? And thus once upon a time, a long, long time ago, the 10 signs became the 12 signs as we know them. There have been many "zodiacs" across the ages.
Then there's the issue that the constellations do not uniformly occupy 30 degrees each in nice neat compartments. That makes the entire notion of depending on the physical constellations to indicate much of anything other than a reference point for the Fixed Stars is fairly useless. The stars have moved since the constellations were created, making the original perceived shapes not as they were.
As an aside, that's why a new investigation of the meanings associated with the "Fixed Stars" is of paramount importance in the Astrology of the future, as they are the Distant Lights showing the larger Love-Wisdom-Intelligence from our galactic neighbors. The ancient meanings of the stars are fairly negative, and newer enlightened Ages require newer enlightened interpretations.
Regarding the zodiac and its 12 signs, my position is the same as many of the greats in Western Humanistic Astrology, such as Marc Edmund Jones, Dane Rudhyar, and many others. As I recently wrote someone, "Frankly, the concept of constellations has nothing to do with astrology, which has to do with the symbolic 12-step reality we all live. Regardless of what we call the areas of space through which the planets move, we are living that symbolic reality."
The names of positions matter less than the qualities of the sector of reality they supposedly describe. We could call the 12 phases (signs) of our whole reality (the zodiac) any names we want. As long as the sequence describes an organic wholeness of experience, then what we call them is less important than the meaning of that phase.
They could be the names of trees or animals (such as various Native American groups purportedly did). We could have 12 stones, or "gods and goddesses." We can even make up names, such as the "Cat in the Hat," "On Beyond Zebra," "Horton and the Who," and "The Grinch" to describe various phases within a larger process. (Thank you Dr. Seuss!)
Even the venerated "12 Step" process yields its astrological correspondences, as does any 12-fold process within a larger wholeness of experience. In any group we can find 3, 4, or 12 "tribes" of distinct function using the zodiacal divisors of Modality, Element function, or "whole function." I used to do a lot of group dynamics work, and found this to be universally true.
The signs merely show the filters through which the "Lights of Personality" shine. There are many ways to describe the filters of perception and experience. Each culture has had its form of "Astrology," using convenient references that the people of that culture could relate to.
So enjoy being whatever signs your chart indicates. Focus on transmuting the dysfunctions of your planetary responses into the highest possible Spiritual functions.
Observe the process as it evolves over time, from beginnings through primary expansions. Note when these shift, "surface" and eliminate/regenerate as the process fulfills itself. Then note the decay of parts of the form that correlate with the forming of seeds that sprout at the beginning of the new cycle.
Call the phases what you will. I call them Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. The rest, as "they" say, is commentary.
© Copyright 2010 Robert Wilkinson
Thanks, Robert. I'll take your answer as definitive.
Posted by: Anne Texas | August 03, 2010 at 09:36 AM
Nicely stated Robert! I prosper from your thoroughness with the details, but I smile at the "simplified" summation of today's post. Thanks muchly!
Posted by: Veronica Norman | August 03, 2010 at 04:56 PM
Hi Robert; I've been studying both Western and Vedic astrology for years and share your view that ''In my experience, while Vedic Astrology is remarkably accurate (and very deterministic!) in terms of life phases using Periods, Sub-Periods, and Sub-sub Periods, in most of its forms it is not as accurate or useful as Western Astrology in showing how to master the evolution of personality into Spiritual Adulthood.'' Oddly enough, given its ancient and highly spiritual origins, I find Jyotish or Vedic astrology mostly useful on a practical level, eg.,to warn someone of a pending accident, etc. I have personally made amazingly accurate predictions for people based on their Jyotish charts, and quite detailed at that. But while this can be fun and validating, it is not the real purpose of astrology, which to me is what you are describing. I find Western astrology more satisfying in terms of understanding the individual's evolutionary requirements and psychological patterns. However, oddly, while I find the Tropical signs work better descriptively (I feel much more like a Virgo Ascendant than a Leo, for example), when it comes to the planetary rulerships of the houses of the chart, Jyotish seems to work better, again, in a very practical way. So I look at both, eg., Mercury rules the 1st and 10th houses in the Tropical version of my chart and the 2nd and 11th houses in the Jyotish version. Invariably though, I find major transits to my natal Mercury really do affect the affairs of the Jyotish houses involved more than they do the affairs of the
Tropical houses involved. Whether I'm checking the planetary period (used in Jyotish), transits or progressions, I seem to get better ''predictive'' value, or a better sense of the areas of life affected, from looking at the rulership of, say Venus, in the Vedic version of the chart. The late Richard Houck wrote in one of his books that he tended to look at it this way, bouncing back and forth between the two systems. So, again, I have Leo rising in Jyotish, but I seem more like a Virgo rising in terms of personality, appearance, demeanor, etc. However a transit by Pluto over my natal Sun years ago produced major events associated with the Sun being my chart ruler more obviously than if the Sun ruled my 12th house, again validating the Jyotish rulerships. I also find that very frequently the timing of the effects of transits can coincide more closely with the Jyotish position, i.e., using the progresson of the (Lahiri) Ayanmsa since the individual's birth. Thus I often note the effects of transits arrive somewhat earlier than would be predicted using the the Tropical placement by degree. Others have noted this too, I believe. Food for thought!
Posted by: Elizabeth | August 03, 2010 at 09:20 PM
Elizabeth, the same goes for me :)
But in all those years I learned to look the both ways and then just wait to see what system will win in that particular time frame. It can be amusing, but not very precise, frustrating... :)
The only thing I can use as an explanation is that I still don't know enough... so the learning journey goes on :)
Posted by: yzse | August 04, 2010 at 01:42 AM
I see the Zodiac as a continuum. However, I found interesting that people born by 10-20 July have deep emotional personality, much more than those born around 1 July or those born around 1 August. Or maybe it's just my delusion.
Posted by: Popplagid | August 06, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Gosh Robert, way to spin my astro pizza. Dwarfed by dust clouds, I'm left with core essence, path, toolbox, and a little know how. Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to work I go. In all due respect to the honorable Dr Seuss, oh the places I'll go.
Am curious (oh oh) about what Merc Rx at my solar year start will reveal.
Posted by: caliban | August 06, 2010 at 12:31 PM
This topic seems to be in our consciousness at the moment Robert, I just wrote something yesterday about this very subject. I do use the tropical zodiac, but only as a mathematical or astronomical tool, not for any interpretive function. The zodiac we use was only ever meant to be an an ecliptic coordinate system. We always used to look at the planets against the backrop of the stars, and indiginous cultures around the world still do.
The transference of the meaning of the stars onto the zodiac signs, cemented by Pteolemy really was a mistake, there is no relationship between Sun signs and the cosmos. Precession of the constellations is just one problem. The fundamental problem is that these 30 degree divisions have been given astrological meaning, where there was never any in the first place. Our motto as astrologers is supposed to be "as above, so below". There are no zodiac signs up there behind the planets, just stars.
Zodiac Signs, Fixed Stars and Precession http://funkastrology.co.uk/?p=6058
Posted by: Jamie Funk | August 08, 2010 at 09:46 PM
Hi Robert
Can you say a little more about this - what pattern in the cosmos are the birthdates following?
Frances
Posted by: Frances | August 13, 2010 at 04:41 PM
ran a fixed star chart. 12 meridians/12 houses. Planet placements in meridians line up with house system. But ah the constellation placements . . . I've taken too much guff for being a Virgo to be a Leo. First mythology I hit on the the fixeds was about a virgin being tied to a rock to feed a big whale. Another one in the volcano. She resurrects as usual, but in a Cinderella kind of way, but then I have not yet read the mythology on that daughter of hers. I just don't think it was wise to tie her to that rock. But alas it is only a myth, right? And they always change depending on the day.
Predictions are beyond me at this point, but as I understand planetary energies better, I do see how certain times could facilitate better flow for certain activities. And I shall consider those far out stars in my wanderings.
Posted by: caliban | August 18, 2010 at 07:38 PM