I’ve always
believed there is an underlying reality to the universe, which we do not
see, yet has been described in many different ways and given many
different names. None of which alters it’s essential nature. When we ask
a question, such as “what is astrology?” our mind shoots off in many
different directions searching for an answer. Maybe it’s a science?
Maybe it’s an art? Maybe it’s a system of divination? Maybe it’s a
cosmology…
The answer that we return with depends upon both our perspective and our capacity for perception. There
is an old Indian story about four men washing an elephant: the one
washing it’s tail described what he saw and said “it’s like this”! The
one washing it’s back said, “no, it’s not like that at all, it’s like
this” and so forth. We all think we are seeing reality, yet we can only
ever be seeing one small part of the picture.
What
if reality is one whole, of which science is only one aspect, art is
another, language is another, divination is another, cosmology is
another, and so forth? This theory is supported by quantum
physicist David Bohm’s theory of a holographic universe [1]. All are
equal aspects of the same whole, seen from different perspectives and
using models created for different purposes. Much like different lenses
on a camera or microscope that present reality through different
magnifications, angles, or filters.
“Despite
the inevitable backlash as old paradigms expire, we are now entering an
age where scientific explanations and models of the cosmos are more in
accord with astrological principles. In such a climate, astrology is
emerging from relative obscurity to become once again a serious study
offering a greater understanding of our true nature as inhabitants of a
living cosmos imbued with sacred mysteries.” - Melanie Reinhart, Chiron, Pholus and Nessus: To The Edge and Beyond.
I believe ancient astrologers knew this and didn’t divide knowledge into separate parts as we do today.
We can perhaps see evidence of this in the Pythagorean school [2] where
students were apparently required to study music, mathematics and to
practice ‘self-examination’ (meditation) in addition to astrology to
gain a comprehensive and experiential understanding of how the universe
works. There is a modern-day counterpart to this in the Tibetan system,
where medicine and astrology are considered one of the "five fields of
knowledge” [3] .
Also
from Tibet the Bön wisdom tradition, which is said to date back over
17,000 years [4] and is still active today, places great emphasis on the
study and knowledge of astrological techniques as a valid method
(science) for understanding the true nature of reality. I think there is
great value in studying knowledge systems that didn’t experience the
subjective/obective ‘split’ that happened in the West between astronomy
and astrology.
In
the Bön tradition [4] great emphasis is placed on cultivating clear
perception: the ability to see reality exactly as it is. This means
observing how our mental concepts can actually obscure our clear view. Masters
of this tradition are said to be able to see clearly (even in the
dark), and expansively (meaning they can perceive planets, even outer
planets and beyond). This
is said to be possible because they are not using their physical eyes,
but rather the ‘light of their clear mind’[4] (which we might think of
as consciousness). When we compare these systems of knowledge
with what is known of the Pythagorean School and the origins of Western
Astrology, we can see that there are some similarities. Namely, looking
at the universe holistically and practicing some form of meditation to
enable one to develop one’s capacity for perceiving subtle energy and
light.
At
first this ability to perceive the universe directly might appear to
make astrology redundant, but if this were the case why would the
greatest masters and sages place such great importance on it? I
believe it is because astrology is primarily a language that has
developed over thousands of years to describe the infinite and subtle
dynamics of light and energy that create universes. The origins of
astrology may be subjective yet it is possible, with great clarity, for
our experiential knowing to still be ‘scientific’ in that it contributes
to our knowledge-base.
The
origins of astrology may be subjective yet it is possible, with great
clarity, for our experiential knowing to still be ‘scientific’ in that
it contributes to our knowledge-base.
The
Dalai Lama has been meeting with scientists like David Bohm for many
years to explore where subjective knowledge from experienced meditators
and objective sciences, such as quantum physics, can work together to
give us a fuller, more complete understanding of reality. He makes a
very good case for valuing both subectivity and objectivity [5]. We
already see a precedent of this in the psychological and social
sciences, where subjective experience is valued and still considered
‘scientific’. (continued in Part II)
|
