Wisdom in astrology

[Jim Eshelman]

In the Introduction to The Practice of Astrology, Dane Rudhyar wrote:

Astrology... is technique for the gaining of wisdom through the understanding of the order in human nature and in all phenomena perceived by man: a technique in understanding.

Astrology as a technique in human understanding: this is, I believe, the deepest and most vital characterization I can establish of this system of thought which has been so greatly abused and so greatly misused. However, there is no attempt on my part to belittle the possibilities of forecasting the future which astrology undoubtedly offers to the master in this difficult art; and indeed no one acquainted with "horary astrology" can ever deny its amazing potentialities. But in order to use constructively and wisely these potentialities the astrologer need have gained more than mere technical proficiency - difficult even as such a gain is. He must also have reached a high degree of human understanding. For what the sky reveals is nothing but raw materials for human understanding. Everything ultimately depends upon individual understanding. This is so in astrology, as it is in medical or psychological therapy. Knowledge, in these fields, is not enough. Wisdom is needed.

The usual astrological text-books, old and new, are filled with data, the memorizing of which insures knowledge. But wisdom is a elusive factor. It can hardly be taught. It may partly be transferred from living person to living person. Yet, because it is based on the full understanding of total situations and of experiences lived without any reservations, it can only be acquired through actual living, through pain, through the discharge of responsibilities, through the courageous and honest putting forth of the whole of oneself in whatever experience is seen as significant.

[SteveS]

Excellent Jim, thanks for posting.

[SteveS]

Only if my memory is serving me, but it seems I remember reading from an AA article Dane Rudhyar was critical of Cyril Fagan's work. Jim, do you ever know if this was so?

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm sure he was. Rudhyar (whom I met only once) thought the whole way of thinking about astrology that valued technical precision and empirical assessment was what was most wrong with astrology, a prime example of how astrology had been "so greatly abused and so greatly misused."

That doesn't change my sense that the passage quoted above is valuable.