Was Blavatsky right that astrology is true?

[David Melik]

Madame Blavatsky (HPB) seemed to say sidereal astrology is true but tropical may not be: she at least described how it is less accurate.  I still see many non-Indian theosophists sticking to tropical astrology and misunderstanding sidereal, which of course has to use 360 degrees, though a friend I discussed it with did not seem to realize.  However I am getting off-topic.

HPB may have said astrology is true and that some other divination is not, but she said to be skeptical.  I am skeptical and think astrology is not reasonable beyond its fundamental idea that heavenly bodies exert forces.

I will not even get into why tropical astrology is unreasonable because my skepticism of sidereal will use a few of the same points.  How many ways can you divide up Earth's orbit around Sun, and what would the number for each way represent? (numerologies have useful ideas about a series of numbers out of infinity from zero to however far the numerology goes.)  The simplest is the orbit can be divided into two either from perihelion or halfway.  There are probably several other ways beyond two that might have some useful symbolism.  However, what astrological systems mainly do are divide up the orbit according to arbitrary constellations from pre-civilized people.  One idea Ken Wilber has is the pre/trans fallacy.  Pre-rational ideas may not have any rational interpretation.  So, how are constellations from pre-civilized people or even civilized ones carrying on imaginary traditions rational?  I think they are not.  There is no natural unit of time that really corresponds to the divisions in sidereal astrology.  There certainly is not one in tropical because it is not even based on current time but alignments about 2000 years out of date, and not even Earth's orbit.

I do not deny that all matter in the universe is in equilibrium in which all bodies of it exert a force on all others.  So, heavenly bodies affect us.  However, saying constellations, which are not bodies, affect us is pre-rational.  Maybe it is not even worth dividing up Earth's orbit unless you divide it into a place for every known star.  I do not know if dividing it in two leads to any astrological truth, and certainly dividing it in four does not correspond to the seasons because perihelion & aphelion are not solstice & equinox.  There could be infinite ways to divide the orbit, and it depends on whether space is boundless or if anything outside the light-cone of the known universe affects Earth.

It is interesting to find a meaning for each number from one to the number of Sanskrit letters, but I am not sure Pythagoras was right by being preoccupied with the symbolism of one to ten.  One later mathematician was killed for proving irrational numbers exist, and why would any natural one be more important than the uncountably infinite irrationals?  I just wanted to say non-name numerology in a scientific context may be more interesting than astrology.  That could include numerological interpretation of sacred texts, but we might find out that it is as unreliable as astrology.  Of course the texts may have hidden meanings, but who knows if it is of more than historical use.  I guess one could say astrology is of the same historical use, but I wanted to point out these skeptical ideas even if HPB said astrology was true.  Maybe it is only true to the extent it is based on physics, which is the basic idea (though physicists try to deny it all) and nothing more.

[Heidi Ann Maycroft]

Peter,

 

The concept you bring out regarding destiny is powerful. To step back and take-in the non-personal; to apply knowledge where it is appropriate might be key within a field as broad as astrology--while it's nature is personal, the implications are universal and apply also to the greater "picture".

 

[I hope my lack of communications skills does not obscure the powerful message of your post] You state a powerful universal principle, which individuals might benefit from heeding: As above, so below. 

 

Thank you Peter for some stimulating thought!

 

tilnext

me

[Peter O'Lalor]

Hi Heidi,

 

     You're welcome. I like what you said. I'm just happy it wasn't too much, and am grateful for a reply.

 

Sincerely,

 

Peter