I’ve just been watching the video below by Robert Hand, and
it’s got me pondering (again) the place of academia and the teaching
institutions within astrology. I suppose my big reservation is that they become
the source of authority, the definers of the canon of knowledge, to which many
astrologers automatically look. A certificate, or an MA from them makes you a
real astrologer in a way that astrologers without those formal qualifications
are not. I think a lot of people think that way.
It is like the relationship between a novelist (practising
astrologer), a creative writing course (the teaching institutions) and literary
criticism (the academy.) Each of these has its place, its value. But make no
mistake: it is the novelist who is at the top of this tree, he/she is the
guardian of the inspiration that spawned these auxiliary branches.
And it is the same with astrology. Astrology is about
reading charts, it is about synthesising symbols so that something original and
energising and particular to that person (or situation) emerges. It is that
ability that brings in something transformative, and gives a sense of the
numinous.
__________________________________________________
Ad Break: I offer webcam astrology readings (£60
full reading/£30 update) and written responses to specific questions (£30).
Price negotiable if you’re hard up. Contact me on Dharmaruci71(at)hotmail.com.
__________________________________________________
I am not saying that astrologers in academia or the teaching
institutions do not have that ability. I am sure that many of them do, to a greater
or lesser degree. But that inspirational quality is crucially dependent on what
I call metaphysical autonomy, which not many people have, though most people
think they have it. It is to do with having your own independent relationship
with what you feel to be ultimate, and this is usually a hard-won thing. It
often involves finding the confidence to put yourself on an ‘equal’ footing
with those who have been your teachers. Then, if you like, the channels are
free, unfettered by derivative pre-conceptions, or any conceptions at all.
But it is evident that in the astrological world, the
practising astrologers are not at the top of the tree. The top of the tree is
occupied by the high priests and priestesses within the institutions. They are
commonly regarded as the authorities.
I am not complaining. I would not expect it to be any other
way. Religion has always been like this, and institutionalised astrology has
all the characteristics of a religion. And religions usually have a ‘heretical’
fringe. Heresy comes from the Greek word hairein meaning
‘to choose’, and that says it all really. The heretics are those who choose,
whose ultimate source of authority is within, rather than without in the form
of books and high priests/esses. And if you are a high priest/ess of astrology,
that inner authority easily turns into a love affair with the authority others give
you. It becomes part of who you are, and the inner connection is compromised. I
have observed this a lot.
So, to address a point Robert Hand makes, I (unlike Hand) am glad that
astrology is not regulated by the government. I think formal training in astrology
can be a great thing, but not all of us have done that, and government
regulation would mean I for one could not practise as an astrologer. (I have,
after all, got Mercury in Aquarius opposite Uranus.) I think if you are that
way inclined, it is perfectly possible to train yourself in astrology. It’s not
that difficult. The hard part is the inner work, and that can easily be
circumvented in a certificate course or an MA. The real qualification is an
initiation, or a series of initiations, that life will usually provide if we
are open to it: Pluto transits, Neptune transits that destroy unreflective
attitudes and awaken us to sources within.
Astrology is an inner thing, but as with any religion, the
emphasis can end up on words and intellect and who knows the most, technical proficiency. The wrong
kind of knowledge.