Culture...... is one of the most widely used, and abused, words in English. Its meaning blurs and varies according to its context and who is describing it 1, and it has been called one of the two or three most difficult words in the English language2.

It is important to make a concerted effort to understand the essence of the culture of groups, societies, clubs and organisations to which you belong as often the fundamental principles that define the culture are vague or even in themselves undefined and the lines of communication are blurred as a result.

It is assumed that because a group of people is allotted the same title – in this case that of “astrologer” – that the culture of that group is clear to all and the assumption is that all who subscribe to that collective subscribe to the same culture. But unless the culture is clearly defined by those very people after time is invested on the reflection thereof, it is foolish to simply assume that everyone is on the same page. As Plato said “The eye cannot see itself”, but the problem with culture is that it is not synonymous with intelligence and therefore is amenable, at least, to functional self-referentiality and definition3.

Sub Cultures

The importance of understanding the culture of a group only becomes clear when there is dissention. By simply joining a group that has an overall culture, does not mean that there aren’t sub cultures that are also of primary importance, if not more important, which must be grasped. Often you need to immerse yourself in the umbrella culture at first in order for the more subtle nuances to emerge; and once this occurs, the umbrella culture is then seen in a completely different light. Take sports people for example – they belong to the group of sport which in itself has an over riding culture. But within the collective there are various disciplines – cycling, running, canoeing, water sports, the list is endless. Each of those disciplines has, in turn, a very different culture although it still subscribes to the overall culture of sport. It is exactly the same with astrology.

All astrologers are interested in the movement of the planets in the sky and are fascinated by this phenomena and the interpretation thereof and all astrologers are painted with the same brush by non astrologers and the media, depending on which colour they use for astrologers in the first place, but this is where the overall similarities end. This culture is then divided into different disciplines – we have Vedic, Hellenistic, Cosmobiology, contemporary, medieval, astrology of the tradition and others. Each of these groups in turn has its own culture based on the philosophies and schools of thought to which they subscribe. Then each of these cultures will have sub cultures based on the groups that they form in different countries, at certain periods in time, and so it continues.

Group Affiliation

If the culture of the specific group that you join is firstly not made clear, it is simply assumed, or secondly has not been defined in the first place, you are entering dangerous territory. It is akin to visiting a foreign country for which you have done no research – you have no idea what the weather is like there so you take inappropriate clothing, you did not bother to check what language was spoken so you are unable to communicate, and you have no idea that certain behaviour that you display will be offensive to the natives of that land until they cannot bear it anymore and reprimand you for your rudeness. Sometimes it is more subtle than that and you simply have a sense that something is “not quite right” and a level of discomfort prevails.

I recently questioned why a friend of mine who had enrolled on my course, had dropped out. She had all the necessary tools to study the astrology of the tradition, she is intelligent, a purveyor of common sense and she is a leading astrologer in her field, yet she left. Initially she spoke of time constraints and the level of difficulty and added a few extras for good measure. As the discussion was initiated due to difficulties that I was experiencing at the time with a group, we probed further and came to the conclusion that it challenged the very core of her belief system that she had spent years cultivating. And herein lays the essence of the culture of the astrology of the tradition.

Astrology of the Tradition

Astrology of the tradition is based on monotheistic principles and the astrology itself makes no sense except in light of revealed faith - it is the one discipline of astrology that requires of you to take a stance with regards to your religious beliefs. It is impossible to practice this astrology without defining the very essence of your relationship with God. If the conclusion that you reach is different to the philosophies on which this astrology is based you are then unable to apply it - it will simply make no sense to you at all. This does not make it wrong or right, and astrologers of the tradition are not self righteous religious bigots, it simply means that it is not for you and it is your right to find another discipline of astrology that is.

Many people commence in sport with running – it is inexpensive and accessible, all you need is you, the road and a good pair of shoes. Some discover that running is the love affair they have always desired and they are still dedicated to it 10 years later, other move on to the various other sporting disciplines on offer. However this does not initiate the heated debate that is to be found in the world of astrology, simply because sporting disciplines do not hinge on a belief system. It is forgotten that organised sports had religious connotations wherever they were to be found in the ancient world4, and this is probably best for the world of sport as a whole. Most astrologers of the tradition commenced with their astrological path through contemporary branches, only to find that there was something fundamentally wrong – for them. The persistent ones eventually knocked on the door of the tradition and for most, they had arrived home – the quest for the Holy Grail had ended.

Astrologers of the tradition have set formulae in their methodologies and everything “is” a certain way because of the philosophy on which the craft is based. The essence of the craft is adhered to at all times and this revolves around the Creator and the creation of the world by Him. If I believe that to be true then I must believe that other disciplines of astrology are incorrect or “false” in the philosophical and theological sense. The incorporation of the asteroids, the allocation of rulerships to the outer planets, the reassigning of house meanings to other houses – these do not form part of the essence and philosophy and therefore are false – so are “false gods”.

This is so even with regards to the aspects – the five Ptolemaic aspects are in accordance with the relationship of the planets to the Lord of Light the Sun and his handmaiden, the Moon – so to introduce new aspects is not only unnecessary, it belies a true understanding of the essence of the craft which then deviates from the philosophy on which the astrology is based in the first place. All of these factors have profound meanings and to fully grasp them takes years of study. This does not detract from the right of astrologers of other disciplines to believe in an astrology of their choice – it is not a judgemental statement – it is a fact. Astrology of the tradition is more than just an astrology – it revolves around a belief system – and some things like faith cannot be qualified or proved. This very essence of the tradition is the basis for its culture.

Mutual Tolerance

In the world of relativism we all live side by side, embracing each others belief systems and we harmoniously discuss our current (and past) lives while ignoring the different cultures – in fact we are (seemingly) oblivious to the different cultures, that is how blissfully happy we are. I say poppy cock! (I have been longing to use that expression). This scenario can work as long as we all adhere to one criterion – we may not say that anyone is wrong – if we all accept that we are all right, and all of our belief systems are all right, no one is better than the other, then that is just fine and dandy. The person who says “but what if......” causes all hell to break loose and the fragile facade of tolerance splinters into tiny pieces. And so it is in the world of astrology of the tradition because it is based on a belief system that is not acceptable to the mainstream, where everyone believes the same dogma, by osmosis, and thus subscribes to the same culture.

Astrologers of the tradition are required to display an enormous amount of tolerance both professionally and socially – we smile and grunt during the prolific “I was Cleopatra in my past life” conversations which take place based on our social culture, or we simply walk away. The same tolerance, respect and affability are not afforded in return and astrologers of the tradition are seen as “the bad guys’. We are like the religious zealots that knock on your door on a Sunday morning – you don’t quite know why you dislike us and why we cause you such high levels of irritation, you simply do. In the astrological world all one asks is some civil tolerance, but astrologers behave like revolutionary factions; far too busy fighting each other to overthrow the regime that they all hate5 – which in my opinion is public ignorance.

Celebrate the differences

It is not uncommon to hear this statement bandied about on a regular basis, but as with many things, the true understanding of the content is misconstrued. Firstly, differences exist, they are based on our ethnicity, and our country of origin, our mother tongue, our gender, the colour of our eyes, the list is inexhaustible. Do we celebrate these differences – I don’t believe that we do. What we do celebrate when we meet others different from us is what about them, is the same as us – so we find a common denominator. If the common denominator of simply being a human being was sufficient, we would be living in a vey different world, but sadly it is not. It is very often the culture to which we belong that crystallises as the common denominator and this is where culture plays a pivotal role in uniting or dividing people. If it is later discovered that we actually belong to different sub cultures within the overall culture then the overall culture is not strong enough to bind us to each other – and there is no celebration of differences, there is simply intolerance.

Conclusion

Before we can examine the culture of any organisation, group or body to which we want to bind ourselves, we have to have clear ideas about our personal principles and to what philosophies and view points we subscribe. Once we have figured those fundamental issues out about ourselves, only then can we start our search to find those who are most like us. It is here that we need to keep our wits about us and to maintain an air of discernment. If a group of people cannot define their culture, even in a rudimentary manner, then we have the right to move on and continue with our search. It is too dangerous to assume that simply because we both have green eyes that we have the same outlook on the colour of eye shadow – it is simply not so.

Any group or body that represents a collective group of people should have taken the trouble to define their beliefs and modus operandi, and they will therefore have a set culture that is identifiable and that can be questioned. If your questions are not welcomed or they do not have the ability to answer them and retaliate with a personal attack due to their inadequacy to debate in the first place, then you have the right to find a collective group that subscribes to the same principles, modus operandi and beliefs as you do – simply put, a culture that is the same as yours. Different cultures divide but within a culture there should be unity.

Footnotes

1. Key Ideas in Human Thought, ed., Kenneth McLeish (New York: Facts on File, 1993), 178.
2. Raymond Williams, Keywords, (London: Fontana, 1983), 87.
3. The Sacred Origin of Sports and Culture, Ghazi bin Muhammed (USA: Fons Vitae, 1998), 11.
4. The Sacred Origin of Sports and Culture, Ghazi bin Muhammed (USA: Fons Vitae, 1998), 62.
5. Mentioned by John Frawley in conversation.