Visible Astrology
A principle of astrology that is rapidly gaining more and more adherents
is that visible astrological factors are the most powerful and most
important.
I was first taught this approach by my Vedic teacher, Hart de
Fouw, and have applied it with great success. Many students of
astrology don't realize which elements are observable and which are not,
so I've created the following table and commentary upon it.
Astrological Factor
|
Observable
|
Partially Observable
|
Not Observable
|
Retrogradation
|
X
|
|
|
Combustion
|
X
|
|
|
Eclipses
|
X
|
|
|
Phase of the Moon
|
X
|
|
|
Planetary War
|
X
|
|
|
Declination
|
X
|
|
|
Oriental/Occidental
|
X
|
|
|
Daily Motion
|
X
|
|
|
Outer Planets
|
|
|
X*
|
Angles
|
X
|
|
|
Directional Strength
|
X
|
|
|
House Position
|
|
|
X*
|
House Cusps
|
|
|
X
|
House Rulerships
|
|
|
X
|
Tropical Sign
|
|
|
X*
|
Sidereal Sign
|
|
X
|
|
Dignity by Sign
|
|
|
X
|
Lunar Mansions
|
|
X
|
|
Antiscia
|
|
|
X
|
Harmonic Positions
|
|
|
X
|
The foremost question is: What does it mean to be observable? By
that I mean, what you can see with your own eyes, without a telescope,
a computer, calculations, or printed tables.
All of the items in the pink section of the table (with the exception of
the Outer Planets) are easily visible with the naked eye, and are therefore
very important factors to consider in making astrological assessments. For astrologers unfamiliar with their astronomy, I would point out that combustion is assessed by whether a planet is visible before or after sunrise or sunset (i.e. its visibility defines it as combust or not). Similarly, a retrograde planet is closest in its orbit to the Earth, and therefore is visibly largest. Additionally, for Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, the planet is brightest (like a Full Moon) when it's retrograde.
The Outer Planets are not observable, and weren't even discovered until
the development of the telescope. I do, however, consider the Outer Planets to be a special case. Even
though they are invisible to the eye, they are not constructs (like signs or
rulerships) but actual physical objects. Because they move much more
slowly than the inner planets, their "effects" are deeper and more long
lasting. And as such, I value Outer Planet transits as a very potent
predictive tool.
Note: For those unfamiliar with some of the terms, a planetary war
occurs when one of the true visible planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter, or Saturn) is within one degree of one of the other true visible
planets. This creates a "territorial battle" with one planet as the victor
and one planet as the loser.
Oriental and Occidental refer to whether planets rise before or after the
Sun (or the Moon), and these terms are used extensively in Renaissance
astrology.
In the orange section of the table, I've examined house positions and
related factors. Notice that the four angles are directly observable, i.e. we
can tell when a planet is rising, setting or culminating. Since directional
strength (called Dig Bala in Vedic astrology) occurs when a planet is on
an angle, it is also visible. House positions, however, are not really
observable. One may be able to tell when a planet is near an angle that
it's in an angular (kendra) or cadent (apoklima) house, but since most
house systems in astrology do not divide the sky into twelve equal slices
as seen by the eye (only Campanus does), the house position is only
occasionally clearly observable.
House cusps, with the exception of the angles, are certainly not
observable, nor are house rulerships (as a result).
In the yellow section of the chart, I focused upon Zodiacal issues, and
factors concerning signs.
The signs of the Zodiac, as used by Western (Tropical) astrologers, are
not visible. Because of the precession of the Equinox, the Tropical
Zodiac signs have no correspondence at this point with the actual
physical constellations.
The Sidereal Zodiac, on the other hand, which is used by Vedic
astrologers, is based upon the actual stars in the sky, and as such is
partially observable. I say "partially" because it is vital to understand
that the constellations are not symmetrical, and that using signs spanning
30° is a construct that serves astrology well, but is not a physical reality.
So while a Vedic astrologer has a much better chance of ascertaining
what sign a planet is in by looking at the night sky than a Western
astrologer does, their assessment may at times not be completely precise.
That's the reason why lunar mansions (aka nakshatras) are also
considered partially visible, since the stars in them too do not
evenly divide around the sky.
On the other hand, sign rulerships and other dignities by sign are
assigned, and are therefore once removed from physical reality, and so they
are not really visible. Similarly, antiscia and harmonic positions are
clearly not observable.
In my own practice, I have found that if a planet is bright (i.e. a Full
Moon or retrograde planet) it is very strong, while if it is dark (combust
or New Moon) it is significantly weaker, and that these factors are more
important than whether a planet is strong or weak by sign.
An excellent example is in the Western chart of Paul Newman, who has
Jupiter in Capricorn rising. The fact that Jupiter was physically just
coming over the horizon is far more important than its "weakness" in
Tropical Capricorn, and in fact his life accurately reflects the great strength of
Jupiter in his chart.
Tom Hanks' chart is another illustration of this principle. In his Vedic
chart, the Moon is in its own sign (Sidereal Cancer), which we might think would give
the Moon strength. But he was born less than two days after the New
Moon, and with a Moon that dark, it's no surprise that he was taken away
from his mother at age 5.
It is up to each astrologer to explore this issue for themselves. I think
you will find great value in noticing the effects of observable chart
elements. Are visible factors more important?