Hybrid astrology

waybread

Well-known member
No memes.

And please, no belligerent beating up of the other side.

This thread is posted in the hopes that we can have a discussion on the future of astrological methods. I've posted it in the modern section because any mention of (shhhhh) modern outer planets would get us bounced out of the traditional board, but I hope we can include traditional methods here.

What I mean by "hybrid" is a chart-reading style that happily crosses boundaries between modern, western traditional, Vedic, and even non-astrological methods. I hope that the old internecine wars between trads and mods of 20 years ago are vanishing, as we all learn and partake of methods useful in multiple traditions.

For example, are you primarily a modern western astrologer who uses lunar mansions (Vedic) and the sidereal zodiac? Whole signs houses? Do you look at essential dignities and debilities?

If you define yourself as a traditional western astrologer, do you on occasionally use modern outer planets? (I'm finding this to be fairly common.)

If your preference is Vedic astrology, have you adopted any western methods?

I hope you will share your experiences!

[Thread moved because the Modern Astrology board is for modern Western astrology, not deliberately hybrid approaches. General astrology is the place to discuss hybrid methods. - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Humanitarian

Well-known member
I'm primarily a modern Western astrologer, but I use Uranian, Esoteric, Western Traditional and other kinds of astrology all the time. I use WSH and essential dignities/debilities too
 

FraterAC

Well-known member
I never took ballet, so I won't attempt to pirouette.
IMHO, whatever astrological precepts or tools a person uses, one should attempt to get really good at them, ie learn them in depth and apply them. Depth, versus superficial (YouTube?) knowledge.

People say Modern vs Traditional like "Modern" means one thing. There are a dozen different "Modern" schools that have burst on the scene in the last 100 years. Just to list a few, Uranian astrology, Cosmobiology, Western Sidereal, Harmonic, Vibrational, Evolutionary, Humanist/Psychological, CoL School, Magi School, Sun Signs, Moon Signs, etc, etc. Also, what is referred to as "Traditional" is a syncretic, modern (less than 40 years old) reconstruction of precepts and techniques developed over a period of thousands of years. It is extremely unlikely that anyone in the "Traditional" period ever practiced an astrology like the astrology its modern Traditionalists do.

So there is no one Modern or Traditional, except as people on one side of the divide or other characterize what their camp is not.
 
Last edited:

FraterAC

Well-known member
Also, I think we in the West have come to realize that Vedic astrology is much more diverse than generally understood. There are strains of Vedic practice that have been passed down by individual teachers, sometimes within families, some of whose techniques and understanding ("secrets") may not have been generally disseminated.
 

Humanitarian

Well-known member
Also, I think we in the West have come to realize that Vedic astrology is much more diverse than generally understood. There are strains of Vedic practice that have been passed down by individual teachers, sometimes within families, some of whose techniques and understanding ("secrets") may not have been generally disseminated.
Yes, as I've seen a lot of secret Vedic techniques, and I think that Abhigya Anand has some of them done by him...
 

waybread

Well-known member
My approach is also pragmatic. I read enough charts for people that if I see a technique that works, I want to use it. Within the past few months, for example, I've been looking more at some of the basic essential and accidental dignities, as well as the galactic center.

Astrology has always changed, evolved, incorporated new ideas, and dropped older ones.

Let's debate techniques on their own merits, by all means; but I don't see the need for thought police.
 

Humanitarian

Well-known member
Astrology is mutable, not fixed, yes, as there are many astrological schools at the same time, like Uranian Astrology, modern Theosophic astrology, et cetera.
 

FraterAC

Well-known member
Modern astrology comes from the Theosophical astrological movement
I don't think that is exactly true.
First because Theosophy included a range of esoteric understanding in its astrology lacking in most modern astrology, and second, because there are many various strains of modern astrology that have no connection with the Theosophical writers of the early 20th Century.

And who were those Theosophists, anyway? Alice Bailey? C.E.O. Carter? Dane Rudhyar? Marc Edmund Jones had some contact with Theosophy. Who else? Alan Leo, arguably the most influential early 20th Century astrologer, was not a Theosophist. Max Heindel wrote about Theosophical concepts but founded his own organization, and I think it can be argued that his influence on modern astrological practice is minimal.
Elbert Benjamine (nee C.C. Zain) had no contact with Theosophy; the Hermeticism the CoL teaches is something completely different.

Humanistic and Psychological astrology has no foundation in Theosophical esoteric concepts. Evolutionary Astrology (Stephen Forrest) doesn't even necessarily believe in reincarnation, as Forrest himself says. The Western Sidereal school, which was very influential in the 70s and 80s, and is still alive and well, did not address Theosophical concepts. The German schools (Uranian and Cosmobiology) do not consider esoteric concepts.

I'd bet a lot of modern astrologers wouldn't know Helena Blavatsky from Taylor Swift. Let alone have any background in Theosophy itself.
So I don't believe good ol' "vanilla" modern astrology has much connection, if any, with the Theosophical movement. I wonder why people keep repeating that. It misrepresents and creates misunderstanding about both what Theosophy is and the various branches of modern astrology.
 

Humanitarian

Well-known member
So, good ol' modern astrology isn't a Theosophical invention, but rather a normal innovation of astrology because of the discovery of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto...
 

Humanitarian

Well-known member
And Alice Bailey, Dane Rudhyar and Marc Edmond Jones influenced my astrological technique, after all... (Sabian Symbols and Esoteric Astrology are my favorite kinds of astrology).
 

FraterAC

Well-known member
So, good ol' modern astrology isn't a Theosophical invention, but rather a normal innovation of astrology because of the discovery of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto...
There were English and European astrologers in the 19th Century and earlier. Astrology may have been underground but it was not dead in the West. The early 20th Century astrologers did not create something out of nothing. Neither did the astronomers suddenly bring a new school to life.
William Lilly used Uranus by 1647 (he called it Herschel). It's discussed in his Introduction to Astrology (page 53 et seq). Neptune was observed in 1781, 1795, 1830, 1845, and finally officially "discovered" in 1846. Only Pluto was new in the 20th Century, and that was after Alan Leo, Max Heindel, and others.
Only some modern Traditionalists define modern astrology by the use of the outer planets, because they don't use them (everything that is not us, must be them). This is an obvious misrepresentation.
Note, I don't have any issue with 21st Century Traditional astrology. I read Ptolemy, Masha Allah and Lilly decades ago (in the 20th Century).
I just think a lot of people are repeating misunderstood or misrepresented partially true statements over and over again without realizing it.
 

Monk

Premium Member
I did go to The Faculty of astrological Studies:-
 

DC80

Well-known member
What I mean by "hybrid" is a chart-reading style that happily crosses boundaries between modern, western traditional, Vedic, and even non-astrological methods.

Great, so people who never mastered the basic concepts in traditional and never mastered the basic concepts in modern and never mastered the basic concepts in Vedic and never mastered the basic concepts in Uranian are going to blend what, exactly?

Nothing.

I'm grateful I don't live anywhere near you because you would think someone who never mastered the basic concepts of physics and never mastered the basic concepts of nuclear physics and never mastered the basic concepts of chemistry and never mastered the basic concepts of engineering is sufficiently qualified to build and operate a nuclear reactor in your community.

What could possibly go wrong?

People grabbing tidbits of things they don't understand and trying to blend them is dabbling, not astrology.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Re: theosophy and modern astrology. I think of Dane Rudhyar, Alan Oken, and Alexander Ruperti. I don't see Rudhar's work as useful in horoscope interpretation, because he interpreted the horoscope as a kind of tool for the theosophical human potential movement.

It's kind of cotton candy for the soul.

I think the theosophical astrologers did influence evolutionary astrology. Which I'm not such a fan of, either.

DC80, I've studied both modern and traditional astrology and I think there is a lot of overlap in the basic concepts. I'd peg the overlap at about 30%.
 
Top