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.
11 comments:
I agree. I taught myself astrology in the '70's and always read a lot about it, but really learned it from doing charts. Then many years later I thought maybe I needed a qualification, so I went to do an MA, and it was a total disaster. Not about astrology at all, but about academic pontificating, in-fighting and one-upmanship. I realised it was actually going to be destructive to my ability to read charts, so I left after a term and a half.
Well, the free atmosphere of astrology as it is today is nice, and I certainly wouldn't want the government to get its hands on it in any way. But the idea that a more formal education system is necessarily all about authority and doctrine rather than about supporting creative inquiry and sharing ideas is flawed. We don't need to reject the idea of astrological educational institutions, we need to make sure we find good models for them.
I agree. It's just that it is human nature for them to get above themselves. But as I said, I'm not complaining!
I think the desire for knowledge is the true motor behind the academy, and from this perspective, I welcome it. There is so much to discover about our art and tutors are guides in what sometimes feels like an initiation. There is a massive level of committment required. Clearly the intellectual pursuit of a masters, is not cut out for everyone, and in this sense it is more an exclusive than an inclusive club. How much of the knowledge will filter through is an interesting question. I think we could call academic astrology, high astrology, and only certain 'types' will gravitate towards it. It will not, in my opinion, impact on the practice of self taught astrologers.
What an interesting discussion, and one which also dominates the psychotherapy world, which is regulated, and often constrained by this regulation. Coming also from academia myself, and being within it, I think most people would be horrified by what is considered to be intellectual. Peer reviewed journals are subject to crass cronyism, narrowed down to meaningless specialisms. Is astrology a discipline? what is its purpose? It would be good for astrologers to get together and discuss these, thereby promoting debate and dialogue, rather than feel outside an institution which is based ultimately upon a scientific method, which itself is 'evidence-based' and therefore any intellectual debate is about how to measure and quantify. There needs a radical change in our mind structures, and expectations and authority projections around institutions before astrology can make its mark - archai is a great journal - the discussion about its being paper-based is to indulge in the constant academic 'rating' of journals which is never based on quality of the interaction between intellect and intuition.
JUng in his book on synchronicity was at pains to point out that evidence would never show the relationship between psyche and matter, as this is beyond scientific method. Science, art, humanity is moving beyond these narrow, polarised ways of thinking, and astrology, could be at the edge of revisiting the relationship between cosmos and psyche, and as such, transforming the old structures which have broken this down.
I agree with your interesting post.
The "need" for certifications and regulations is a search for ceranity and security. While some authority sanctions what is good or not in according to their own viewpoint knowledge may cristallised and become stale.
Best thing is to follow our own experience and gut feeling. We all know hi priest in the medical field, law, or academia that are so wrong!
A certificate is no vaccination or warranty against stupidity. Again, personal experience and common sense are the best guides when choosing of following advice from a general practitioner, a solicitor, a teacher,.... an astrologer.
Cheers!
Nic
For me, this post and comments clarifies a whole new dimension about offering astrological services. I am self-taught and also took a long-distance course in the 70's. I never finished the course, hence I feel huge gaps in my understanding of synthesis or forecasting. I clearly lack counseling skills to be comfortable giving my perspective to others, although I have helped (so they rave) friends. I have been on my own in my constant search for truth, and was Delighted (yes, capital "D") when I discovered the plethora of astrology blogs on the Internet. However, reality has started to set in in respect to the pecking-order and politics involved even in the astro world. I do think
there needs to be some form of credentialing. Perhaps prooving oneself competent is a start, I don't know. I do know that if I had offered my services as an astrologer (as a friend has adamantly suggested) I would be sorely prepared to be of help, and could have possibly been damaging. I wonder if some form of mentoring would help students perfect their technique, skill and unique approaches?
Thank you for this, I agree, especially with this part, "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."
These past few years, I spent thousands of dollars on readings and consultations. After having several readings and learning on my own, I know now to be more selective on who I surrender my money to.
What about politicians, they are supposed to be public servants, it sure is not reflected in their exorbitant salaries and privileged benefits.
One of your previous blogs, February 27, 2012 'The Right Sort of Weirdness' you mentioned a similar concern. That's good!
Nobody taught Muddy Waters how to play the blues.
well said! i agree with you...shamanism may go the same way, and it seems common for people to label themselves as way showers and the like....its holding up shiny banners and flags, bits of paper and certification...its too 'neat' and 'tidy'...and unfortunately narrowing and canalising knowledge and thought...FREEDOM!
Yes and you put it so well.
Post a Comment