Astrology hasn't changed since the 2nd century

I just learnt that since Astralogy was first created, it hasn't changed or adapted at all despite the discovery of new planets and a shift in the Earth's rotational axis that throws the astralogical zodiac on which star signs and taro cards are still based on, by 23 degrees.

How can you take this seriously when it's been factually outdated and no longer applicable?

 

First of all, have you actually read any astrology books written prior to the 17th century? There is almost nothing similar to the astrology practiced today. Almost everything is changed.

Modern astrology uses the new planets. I don't personally because of various technical reasons, but most astrologers do.

The shift in the Earth's rotational axis that you are referring to is called the "precession of the equinoxes". It's been known about by astrologers since BEFORE the 2nd century. Hindu/Vedic astrology takes this into account in fact.

You are referring to tropical astrology which is primarily used in the West. There are two reasons why we don't take precession into account:

1. The zodiac is tied to the seasons for various technical reasons which I won't get into here. In tropical astrology spring always falls at 0 degrees Aries.

2. The signs are not the same thing as constellations. This is a huge misconception. Before you think this is a copout, we have texts by the famous Arabic astrologer Musha'Allah who specifically states this - and this was before the difference between the signs and constellations were maybe a degree or two. The 2nd century writer Ptolemy also made this argument.

Another thing you probably aren't aware of, at least in traditional astrology, we use certain stars in our charts. We call these fixed stars, but (LOL - they actually move am I rite?). These are ALWAYS used by taking precession into account. So, in effect, we use two different systems simultaneously.

We should sticky this thread. Every so often someone sees some documentary or something that mentions this, and they think some "new" discovery just happened. People who say this do not know anything about astrology. Period.

edit: I'm surprised you didn't mention the "OH MY GOD THEY'VE DISCOVERED A 13TH ZODIAC SIGN AND THERE'S A CABAL OF ASTROLOGERS SUPPRESSING IT!" In case you're curious, that's Ophiucus, and no it's not a zodiac sign. It's a constellation though.

 

Part of what you say is absolutely correct.
The only reason (opinion) why astrology has any continuing validity is because of the astrological 'aspects', whch are the geometric relationships that exist among the planets, sun and moon in our solar system.
The aspects remain the same whether one uses the tropical (calendar) or sidereal (actual planetary positions) zodiac; only the 'houses' change.

Considering that the opening volley of the 'war' betwen religion and science was aimed at astrology it seems naive to believe that the Roman Catholic Church's Gregorian Calendar would be designed to create accurate astrological charts.
Plus about 85% of Westerners are actually a different astrological sign than what they think that they are.

The Gregorian Calendar was NEVER intended for astrology.

The word 'horoscope' is derived from a Greek word which, when translated, means 'the stars that were rising at the hour of one's birth'.
The Gregorian Calendar is now approx. 27 degrees 'off' (after accounting for calendar errors) of what is going on in 'real time' in the solar system.

However, an accomplished astrologer can investigate the calendar and zodiac errors and compensate for them.

After studying astrology for a while (a few years) one can begin to discern that there is a connection between what is going on 'inside' of one's self and what is going on in the solar system.

Astrology and Western religions all have one thing in common and that is to attempt to get its members to 'connect' to somethng in the heavens...... either 'God' or the planetary archetypes that represent the pantheon of Gods.

Astrology has changed quite a bit since, say, 10 A.D. but it has become unduly complicated and obtuse. .... not to mention (again) that the tropical (calendar) zodiac is a pure fiction based upon the seasons and not the actual positions of the planets, sun , moon and stars.

.

 

Only that that "fiction" of western/tropical zodiac is somehow amazingly accurate. Say what you will, what works, works. People are not dumb, and whatever sweeps millions and millions must have some basis. Sidereal never worked in the charts I've seen.

 

I think it works if you're using Vedic techniques, but yeah I don't mix and match.

P.S. I don't think the OP knows what sidereal is.

 

Astrology- Chinese or Western is terribly misunderstood. The problem is astrology has been distilled through millions of daily horoscopes in newspapers and gossip mags, badly written books and half-baked astrologers looking for a quick buck. When confronted with a question like what started this thread, many astrologers or enthusiast do not have the theoretical grounding to answer that with a any measure of intelligence.

This art has been evolving continously. It is much more sophisticated as compared to what it was thousands of years ago. The foundation and the basis can never change, but the way it is practiced, the technology, the application of it must be so different. Furthermore, life is so much more different today. The variables and the external changes affecting a person's life is so much more today as compared to the ancient world. In the old days, a warrior was a warrior. A merchant a merchant. A nobleman a nobleman. Their lot in life is unchanging (even for generations). Not today.

I practice Chinese Astrology. A system called BaZi which is based on the Solar Calendar. (There are systems that are based on the Lunar calendar as well.). You do not mix one with the other. Each has its own merits and focus.

The Pilgrim

 

what systems are based on the lunar calendar?

 

Tropical astrology works for me. I don't have anything but a casual interest in classical or Vedic astrology. I appreciate that a billion Indians have the belief that astrology has meaning; but it kind of puts what I believe and use on it's head. I am not one to debate history. It is interesting, but I would rather just practice holistic astrology and not get into any great philiisophical debates.