Tutorial for Entering Astrology Study (+ brief summary of its trends)

New students have asked me about sources for learning astrology. So I decided to respond with an article to help newcomers navigate the world of astrology, its texts, popular books and ideas, and its online environment. That way you can accelerate your learning and skip past many inconvenient remedial lessons that no one should have to go through anyway. You’re welcome 🙂

My own studies included the Magi Society, the Edgar Cayce material and the corresponding interpretive works of John Willner and Ry Redd, even Linda Goodman, Joan McEvers & Marion March, the Rosicrucians, and the strong humanistic influences of Liz Greene and Robert Hand (among others). So of course, I endorse an eclectic spread of sources to learn from.

An eclectic spread of learning is good, but when taken without critical thought aimed at cohesion and consistency problems arise …

Much of the common astrology talk today passes tropes to unsuspecting novices.

One of more controversial targets of these tropes is the sign cusps — None of the standard instructional texts I’ve seen actually tell students how the positions of the luminaries and planets are measured, very essential for understanding cusps of the signs. I explain what you need to know in the article I just linked.

I didn’t know it at the time, but the texts I studied back in the late 90s (The Only Way to Learn Astrology … series by McEvers & March) contained an astonishing amount of misinformation. Those texts were written in the 1970s before the advent of Lois Rodden’s rating system for astrological data (1990s). Not only were about half the birth chart examples (of volume two) based on wrong birth data, but those mis-examples seriously undermined the concepts they were trying to illustrate.

A number of the concepts proved unreliable for actual application in the interpretation of horoscopes like the so-called unaspected planet. The article I linked there demonstrates this with a number of examples from volume two of that series. The primary reason this misnomer trope developed is from astrologers not consulting the declinations of the planets and just mindlessly passing along the unsubstantiated prior opinions of other astrologers. That caused them to misconstrue what they were seeing in people’s birth charts against the backdrop of their lives. The first volume in the McEvers-March series did mention the parallel aspect of declination and that its orb should be about 1°, but left out the entire topic of what declinations actually are.

Some other tropes and misnomers:

– “Intercepted” signs. Signs are known arcs of 30° in the tropical zodiac and are not subject to geometric interception. I address this repeatedly online. Here I address it in the Linda Goodman forum.

– “Intercepted” planets — don’t exist. Planets are bodies not arcs and cannot be labelled and interpreted as intercepted simply because they fall within an intercepted house.

– All “lack of ___” interpretations. We don’t superimpose what we think ‘should’ be in someone’s birth chart just because other people have it or it might seem somehow better or ideal. The job of the astrologer is to interpret what is there in a way that is appropriate and helpful.

So you see, an essential part of learning will always be un-learning.

The astrological community keeps a current of language within itself and it adopts those who join in and go along with it. But that stream of thought is largely unfiltered and allows a lot of chaff to get through. That is because astrological group think eschews anything really approaching peer review or valid questioning from deeply thoughtful astrologers who are unwilling to pass on untested, poorly scrutinized ideas to the astrological audience. If an already popular author says it or if Llewellyn or Hay House publishes something by one of their students, the trend starts and often sticks.

For this reason it is best not to be a “true believer” in astrological concepts offered by humans — but skeptical instead.

That may seem odd coming from a dedicated astrologer, but bad astrology skewed by unsubstantiated specification or that disregards free will or promotes fear or pessimism — is worse than no astrology at all.

However, it is wholly possible to be appropriately skeptical, yet accepting of a larger metaphysical reality so that truth has its open invitation into your mind. It is entirely practical to be a modern humanist while keeping ears open to those who have had life changing metaphysical experiences (like NDEs). (I’ve had some of my own metaphysical experiences.)

And it is your own intuition, your inner guidance from a place of peace, that is being elicited or supplemented with a good astrological reading — not replaced.

Humanism is important to astrology. It is a levy guarding free will against the buffeting waters and winds of metaphysical superstitions — and the next new trend.

Humanism is an ethical outlook onto humanity that prioritizes their dignity and agency as individuals (and as a collective). It uses critical thinking to scrutinize belief. It is what binds together and propels modern thought in psychology, sociology, anthropology, democracy, and all health sciences. There is a good dose of humanism present in the work of any astrologer who practices and interprets to inform choice rather than make pronouncements or predictions.

As a counter-balance, acceptance of metaphysical thought and inquiry is essential because the cognitive mind of human beings cannot be the final measure of the truth while operating in transience between the book ends of birth and death.

Too many astrologers and too many forms of astrology seem intent on bulldozing at or around human agency with their core astrological assumptions and interpretive positions. Older schools of astrology have more obvious catapults that hurl dogmatic determinism at the human individual and their future.

As astrologers we are not responsible to the zodiac or the school of astrology we may espouse, but for what we say to others.

So I highly recommend studying the work of those humanistic astrologers whose work honors your free will and leaves room for the modern progress brought in with modern psychology: Liz Greene, Robert Hand, even Robert Pelletier and Dane Rudhyar.

Skip all the popular tradebacks with phrases like “love”, “wealth”, “true destiny”, “simple” or “easy” on the cover. Those are for the masses who aren’t astrology students. Even if you read those books you won’t gain much if any insight into learning how the author arrived at those descriptions, or how to interpret a birth chart yourself. So why bother? Same with the so-called birthday books. They’re coffee table curiosities.

Some texts and materials to get if you want to study:

If you are going to study astrology seriously it is important to have real texts to study and some reference materials to keep. Scanning various websites for opinions or answers to random questions won’t do. It is best to study in a systematic fashion.

• The Arkana Dictionary of Astrology by Fred Gettings. No tradeback comes close to what this volume gives. Nearly every relevant astrological term from the last 150 years is found in it. Buy it and keep it.
• The Rulership Book by Rex E. Bills. This may be more essential than the preceding work because it is practical in nature, a necessary reference that will keep you from continuing to ask (dumb) questions in astrology forums for years to come. The contents of this work are from surveys of astrologers and they may not always hit right on the truth, but about 90% of the time the entry will tell you what you need to know. This is a massive work that is scandalously under-utilized by the astrological community.
• A Handbook for the Humanistic Astrologer by Michael R. Meyer.
• The Rosicrucian free lessons in spiritual astrology. Their ephemerides and free software are also excellent.
• Anything by Liz Greene and Robert Hand, but you might start with Horoscope Symbols by R. Hand. Liz Greene has written a huge collection of works that could be its own study course. She’s fantastic and you can’t go wrong with her.
• The Powerful Declinations by John Willner or KT Boehrer’s book Declination: the Other Dimension.

The smartest thing you can do in your study of astrology is to include Declinations as early as possible. You’ll have an advantage and see things other astrologers cannot.

You may not learn any more from either Willner’s or Boehrer’s books than you can here on my declinations page, but the literature is nearly non-existent, so I recommend the only two books I know on the topic. I learned declinations as an autodidact through slow observation and experience. Maybe you will too, but you will definitely be a far more prepared and smarter astrologer if you learn to manage this second axis of planetary location.

Stay with natal astrology and generalities first. Learn how a birth chart is cast and how to do it if possible. Don’t rely on books that claim in their titles that it is the only book you’ll ever need. They’re okay as introductions, but no one book (or series) can contain all there is to know for you to learn how to be a truly well rounded astrologer.

Later move on to more advanced materials that deal with transits, chart rectification and advanced chart casting issues, and progressions, etc.

• Planets in Transit by Robert Hand. This one can be used as a general template for understanding transits and progressions, and can even give insights into natal interpretation, but don’t jump ahead to this volume. Get your basics down first. That will take a few years.
• The Rising Sign Problem by John Willner.

See what you can do with those, then we’ll talk more. I’m always adding in a book or two here or there as the years go by and I find some gems.

Now for a bit of historical perspective on modern astrology and its trends …

The modern approach to astrology got is start during the Victorian era (1837-1901) which combined interest in the occult or metaphysical with interest in advances in psychological understanding of human beings.

Until the late 1800s there was not even a standardized set of worldwide time zones so that astrologers could properly practice horoscopic astrology. Astrology tended to be as much philosophical (astrosophy) than actual practice.

It was a weird period of cleavage of old methods of direct observation from new increasingly urban lifestyles by the educated and cosmopolitan who had better access to other occultists and printing presses. Authors often wrote books on topics of which they had little actual knowledge. There’s a lot of nonsense in those wonderful smelling turn-of-the-century books. It may’ve been inevitable in that formal and restrained society that tolerable rebels were found in the spiritualist and occult circles, since they were at least quasi-religious, and this necessarily included astrology.

It was a non-astrologer, Helena Blavatsky, who actually triggered its revival through the spread of Theosophical occultism in the U.S. Theosophy brought many occultists and astrologers out of the woodwork, but wasn’t until Alan Leo and Sepharial that popular interest was revived in Britain and it happened within a spiritually-minded framework.

A modern trend: asteroidism (1970s-90s).

The discovery of asteroids, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Chiron, etc, their naming and astrological inclusion is a given. (I include Chiron on every chart I cast.) Promoting any of them to equal or greater significance than the planets is another thing entirely. Asteroidism treated asteroids like important missing links and tried to insert them as new rulers of some signs. (The real missing link is declinations.) Luckily that has been mostly squashed, but still lingers in the minds of some.

Now there were so many ‘essential’ cosmic bodies with their glyphs on birth charts that it has turned charts into games of marbles and natal horoscopy into a loaded stock pond for fishing until asteroidists get exactly what they want for interpretive output. With over 19,000 named asteroids there is quite literally something for everyone, every speculation, every loose association.

Luckily, Linda Goodman arrived on the scene just before this to beautify and increase our appreciation of the basics in popular astrology. I’ll take Linda Goodman’s beautiful, articulate basic astrology any day over the asteroidist mess.

And luckily, Liz Green published her work Saturn: a New Look at an Old Devil in 1976.

The chaos of asteroidism understandably drove two generations of astrologers, hobbyists, and clients to want something simpler, clearer, more focused — more useful. Something that wouldn’t allow for such fishing expeditions. Something with lots of specific rules of interpretation with linear guidelines converging on calculable life outcomes …

Enter the revival of the medieval and ancient.

Shall we now regress to that territory bounded by Saturn, those romantic medieval times complete with English civil war, survival worries, superstitions, omens, and poorly aimed false prophecies? Or shall we regress further still to that old soothsayer and pseudo-astrologer Nostradamus and make him our chief patron and unifying astrology icon? Pardon me for indulging in some sarcasm.

Old William Lilly
Wasn’t he silly
He made his predictions of many contradictions
and wore flat collars, not frilly.

First, traditional European astrology ala William Lilly. Now not only do we get to drop the asteroids all together, but also the three modern planets we were so long in discovering (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto). Those trans-personal babies can easily be thrown out with the dirty bathwater of overwhelm and confusion.

Lilly’s work Christian Astrology (1659) had always been useful into the 20th century by doctors needing a guide to decumbiture (medical astrological charts) and other astrologers following its protocols for horary.

Hellenic cult god Serapis (photo via wiki commons)

Others went further, delving into the ancient: Hellenistic astrology. No asteroids or modern planets there either. Even more fatalist concepts since most of those ancients didn’t live more than an average of about four decades, long enough to cook up astrological concepts well suited for their more urgent familial needs, but not long enough to test them over enough Saturn cycles to gain the necessary wisdom. Hellenistic and all Greek astrology was not natively developed, but borrowed — quite derivative. Why not keep tracing back to its roots all the way back to Babylon? A good idea if done properly.

Now astrologers and astrologists seem really confused about what moment in space-time they really want to inhabit. Turn of the millennia? 17th century?

It is not uncommon these days for a person to get an astrological reading that entirely contradicts the one from the next astrologer. One is dour and fatalistic and cannot speak at all in modern language and practicalities. Another may feel more like an informative conversation that gives direction and timing, even a sense of relief.

What is needed is for the progressive timeline of astrological thought to be restored — carefully like a curator of fine art would oversee for a museum — and integrated into modern practice by astrologers dedicated to humanist ethics.

Certainly there is beauty in variety and wisdom in diversity. We need Zoraoastrianism, Jyotish, eastern and western astrology, traditional and modern astrological thought — all of it. And we need the best from them all to inform a truly advanced astrology of tomorrow (Ry Redd would certainly agree.)

But there’s been entirely too much trendiness driven by the desire to reinvent the wheel or restore it to its former romantic glory or mystic powers (mostly conjured up by imagination to fill the gap created by western religious propaganda and fear of occultism).

Many astrologers and students seem unable to filter and prioritize the gathering information into a useful format for application. They seem distracted by minutia or uncertain about what it is they’re looking for: that original lost truth? more accurate predictions? fuller understanding? more tricks and interpretive gadgets? prettier software with more bells and whistles?

It is important to understand that prediction is not the measure of astrology’s quality and that software can never make the astrologer.

A hierarchy of the importance of astrological factors:

1. Planets: The energies and actors in astrology. They give the signs their underlying principles. By locating them in a zodiacal system we can then see their relationships, the aspects.

Declination, the north-south axis, is necessary to precisely locate planet position along with the east-west axis. And this is necessary to get some of the most important aspects in the birth chart: parallels and contra-parallels. With just planets and their aspects there is a wealth of information for interpretation.

2. Signs: The modes of expression for the planets, showing how the energies are focused. I prefer the tropical system and stick with it since it is so consistent and reliable.

3. Houses: The last portion of information that gives greater specificity as to where the planetary energies are most focused (what category of life). It requires the well trained, professional touch to line up correctly as it is only really usable for interpretation when the Ascendant is verified precisely correct.

4. All other astrological factors.

This is the priority I give astrological information. If there is uncertainty or confusion or any trouble with any factor at all, the thing to do is simply return the interpretation to the higher level in the hierarchy and look deeper at it there.

Astrology is like western society and the modern world of the last hundred years — changing with greater rapidity, moving away from traditional mores, but rebelling against the confusion and increasing complexity their co-called progress is creating.

If astrology isn’t careful it could create its own version of the wicked problem that plagues modern urbanism and modern life in general.

So if you are new to this, don’t sweat these rapids or get sucked into their eddies. Let it play out while keeping your astrological diet to small well balanced portions, taking in only what you need.

If it doesn’t empower you it cannot possibly enable your growth.

Does it trigger anxiety? Then it’s probably not useful astrology, or you don’t yet have the philosophical context to not take the information without over-personalizing it. Useful astrology informs growth and choice. It doesn’t lead with this-is-what-could-happen-to-you.

If you’re falling into worry and anxiety because of astrological information then you may need to set it aside for a while. Come back to it later with a more peaceful mindset and find an astrologer who resonate with that. Look for those who have practical insights for living. Otherwise you may not be learning anything useful or necessary at all.

The most important astrological idea is to accept that you were born at a unique intersection of space-time for your unique purposes and potentials to sprout and flower.

That is a process. Don’t be afraid of failing. Just be determined to sprout towards the sun and flower.