• Search
  • Lost Password?

Modern vs. Traditional Astrology Debate

Modern vs. Traditional Astrology DebateThis episode of The Astrology Podcast features a recording of a live debate between Eric Meyers and Chris Brennan on the differences between modern and traditional astrology.

The recent revival of the older, pre-20th century forms of astrology in the past few decades has led to some major differences in how “modern” and “traditional” astrologers practice and conceptualize the subject, and the purpose of the debate was to explore some of the specific points of divergence between the approaches.

Eric represented the modern tradition, and Chris represented the traditional approach.

The end result was a sweeping two-hour debate that covered several important topics related to the conceptualization, practice, and philosophy of astrology in the 21st century.

Some of the main topics covered in the debate include:

  • The role of consciousness in astrological interpretation.
  • The validity of distinctions such as “benefic” and “malefic”.
  • The validity of zodiacal dignity and debility schemes.
  • The extent to which things are fated or predetermined, and the role of free-will.
  • The extent to which other celestial bodies beyond the classical seven should be incorporated into the system, and how.

And many more topics.

Debate Recording

The debate was held in front of a live audience on Saturday, June 14, 2014 at the Mercury Cafe in downtown Denver, Colorado, as part of the monthly meeting of The Denver Astrology Group, which is organized by Chris Brennan and Leisa Schaim.

The debate opens with Chris and Eric each taking a few minutes in order to make some opening statements. The debate was then scheduled to take up the first hour and a half of the meeting, and then we left 30 minutes open for questions from the audience at the end as well. The recording is 2 hours and 19 minutes long, as it ended up taking a little bit longer than we had scheduled.

The written version of Chris’ opening statements can be read on his astrology blog.

You can download or listen to the audio file through the links below.

Pictures from the Debate

Here are a few pictures from the debate, kindly submitted by audience members, that way you can visualize the setup as you are listening.

Eric and Chris 1 Eric and Chris 2 Eric and Chris 3 IMG_20140614_141645_348




Speaker Bios

Eric Meyers holds an M.A. in Transpersonal Counseling Psychology from Naropa University. He has written 5 astrology books, the most recent of which is titled The Astrology of Awakening: Eclipse of the Ego. He is a graduate of the Steven Forrest Apprenticeship Program; an evolutionary astrologer with an emphasis on spiritual awakening. Eric’s main emphasis is on clarifying a spiritual paradigm for astrology, one that literally orbits around spiritual realization instead of ego. He can be reached at: eric@soulvisionconsulting, www.SoulVisionConsulting.com.

Chris Brennan is a practicing astrologer from Denver, Colorado. He was educated at Kepler College, where he focused on cross-cultural comparisons between the astrological traditions. He is the former President of the Association for Young Astrologers as well as the former Research Director of the National Council for Geocosmic Research. His forthcoming book is titled Hellenistic Astrology: The Study of Fate. He conducts consultations and teaches online classes on astrology through his website: www.ChrisBrennanAstrologer.com.


A full transcript of the debate is available here: Episode 18 transcript.

Download or Stream the Podcast

You can either download this episode of the podcast as an MP3 or you can play it directly from the website by using the buttons below:

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • I’m not sure if Eric is available to comment here, but he mentioned several times his credentials in psychology. I am curious which psychological model, taught during a post-graduate psychology course at university, attests that the condition of your consciousness determines whether or not you will be raped, or indeed how useful this viewpoint is in counselling an individual who has been raped.

    As soon as any data is gleaned from a birth chart – regardless of how that is incorporated or what philosophical models we view that data through – we are using astrology. And no university course I am aware of encourages the use of an astrological model within a consultation setting. Therefore we can conclude that astrologers, regardless of whether they counsel, are doing astrology.

    As the matter of qualification was made by Eric, I wonder if he thinks that a) A psychological board of ethics would agree with his comments and views on rape, and b) whether he has studied (to a post graduate level) quantum mechanics that is so often referenced.

    I am not sure if Eric is available to comment here, but I hope he is.

  • I feel that Eric Meyers is not an astrologer but a spiritual counselor who finds it useful to employ some basic astrological concepts in his practice, as he notably rejects further study of astrological science and the addition of finer astrological distinctions at many points in the debate. Is this a fair assessment? If so, I think he is unqualified to deliver a critique on the development and theory of astrological science, in much the same way as a builder using some math and physics is unqualified to offer critique of areas of mathematical and physical theory on the grounds of whether they offer something helpful to his building practice. He mentions studying quantum physics more valuable than studying older texts on astrology, which is consistent with his syncretic counseling approach of primarily using as a tool this idiosyncratic ideology of his of a solipsist-dream reality where one can improve one’s lot in life (make energies shown in one’s astrological chart “lighter”) by adopting his belief system, or maybe through the counseling process with him which introduces a smattering of ideas from astrology to quantum physics that help one feel more empowered.

    As someone who is passionate about the study of astrology, I tend to believe that astrological practice is in its absolute infancy. I mean this by ability to describe and predict. I think it reached its furthest development around the Hellenistic period to early Middle Ages, in terms of sophistication and complexity. I don’t think that any traditional astrologer can tell you that much that’s useful in concrete terms at this point, but at the same time I marvel at just how much can be seen, especially when compared with so-called modern astrology and oversimplifications of everything. If you are not interested in the development of astrology as a science, then learning about additional techniques, principles, and such would obviously be of no use. Instead, you take away what you find useful to serve your purpose. I’m not a counselor, or a reader, or any of that, but I’m interested in an astrology that says more and says it more accurately, and I’ve sought it to maintain my interest in the potential of astrology, just as the modern approach proved more and more impotent for describing anything. No matter what philosophical paradigm you are coming from, if you want better astrology and are critical thinking then you’ll have to look back, even back beyond simplistic “falls are bad”, “exaltations are good” jazz. You’ll disagree with astrologers from the Hellenistic age as they disagreed with each other on many things. But all in all, they had intense discussions and tried intense techniques, and about 90% of the good stuff is just missing in the “astrology” of most modern astrologers. I guess my point is that I think that there is a lot of really good stuff in the Hellenistic tradition that hasn’t even begun to be mined by intelligent, critically-thinking, yet astrologically-minded thinkers. So much work to do and to write it off as ignorant garbage or a shell game is disappointing for those who actually like “astrology”. It is possible to “like” astrology and study it as one does with “music” or “art”, regardless of whether it is serving any ideologically driven mission, political, spiritual, or otherwise..

    There is a difficult contradiction in saying there are no signs that tend to indicate “good” or “bad” things for the client, then saying that when someone is evolved all the things are less “dark” / more “light”. I’ve gone through some pretty dark times during spiritual highs and pretty fortunate events when my consciousness was pretty dim. I have met very fortunate, nasty people and very unfortunate, blessed souls. It is disconcerting to hear Eric pivoting back and forth on this idea that evolved consciosness makes significations better, yet being unable to face the implications of that idea (namely the fallacy that bad things happen more to those less spiritually evolved and vice-versa). He claims that the traditional astrological position that some unpleasant things may be signified and may be impossible to completely sublimate is a position in which we are seeking “good” times for ego’s sake, but this is a fallacy. Chris tends toward stoicism in which much spiritual growth takes place from facing and dealing with reality – one evolves in one’s approach to life (or “consciousness” if you prefer) to be able to grow from even the most difficult situations, even when those are unavoidable. On the contrary, Eric is preaching that by some unspecified means of spiritual growth, which mainly seems to be identified with believing in a sort of quasi-quantum-solipsist-dream ideology of reality, then we can expand our consciousness so that the significations in the chart are lighter and signify beneficial things, even when unpleasant. Essentially, it is a “believe as me” and good things will happen to you approach, and I fail to see where astrology fits in or how that benefits spiritual growth and maturity. It seems to be the “spiritual materialism” of things like law of attraction folk, and which was preached against as an ideological trap by some notable Buddhist monks, such as Trungpa, in the 1970’s.

    I think it is liberating to note that consciousness is not “delineated” in the chart. But it’s also kind of liberating that the Ascendant is an abstract stand-in for consciousness in the chart in ancient astrology. Interestingly, in ancient astrology the stand in for consciousness is not a planet but a fast-moving point, journeying through/against the planets, signs, stars, etc. That sounds like characterizing consciousness much less than when I hear that Maya Angelou’s writing is characterized by Mercury in Pisces and that Mercury in Virgo people are better suited to technical subjects. What to make of the technical Virgo Mercury’s of Freddie Mercury, J.K. Rowling, PJ Harvey, William Faulkner? I don’t want the “energy” of my writing and speaking completely lumped in with everyone else with Mercury in Scorpio and to be told what kind of thinking and poetry Mercury in Scorpio people are good at any more than I want to be told that my Moon is bad because it’s in Scorpio in fall. Neither are very good astrology at the level of the “art” and neither reflect very sophisticated astrological “science” either. Sinead O’Connor, Stalin, Ted Bundy, Walt Disney, Bruce Lee, and I do not share the same core “ego” energy, and I’m offended by modern astrologers who feel that is so. The “energy” of my ego and personality is far more complex than that. In Hellenistic and early medieval astrology there are a number of factors looked at for delineating personality, and they are distinct from and relate in interesting ways to other circumstances in life, such as spiritual experiences, family, partnerships, etc. Only ancient astrology has a sophisticated enough vocabulary to begin to say something intelligible about someone’s personality, spirituality, and things of this sort that is complex and contradictory enough to approach the individual. It is also complex enough to allow for different factors to come to the fore at different points, so that even the energy of someone’s “ego” may change some through time. Those looking at astrology for spiritual growth and remediation may also find more points to focus on, for instance in emphasizing the role of Jupiterian like optimism, positivity, and openness in one’s life or knowing which factors/types of things connect with other types, pleasant and unpleasant. The real debate between modern and traditional astrology is one of whether astrology can be developed as a science in its own right which can be used to describe and predict more accurately, or whether it is a waste of time besides using a few basic ideas from it as meditative tools in a counseling context.

    I’d also like to point out that Eric takes up a whiggish view of history in this lecture in which many misconceptions are stated about the history of science. People didn’t all used to believe the world was flat in the middle ages (see – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth – “Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that ‘there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference’.”) Also, Ptolemy (2nd Century CE) did recognize as distinct those mental illnesses affecting what he called the “irrational” faculties as pertaining to the Moon and those affected what he called the “rational” faculties as pertaining to Mercury, which was a long running distinction between the more unconscious and conscious faculties of the mind in ancient astrology, also picked up in the middle ages.

  • Eric Meyers, this is your figment of your imagination calling. I’m not really here, but just a projection of your consciousness. Note to self: please start studying ancient astrology so we (Sybil that is) can become fully awake.

    When we passed through the waters of forgetfulness (lethe) we forgot that one of our projections (Aristotle) said that fate should be demoted from an efficient cause to a material cause. As such, choice exists through the remaining possibilities that are necessary but not sufficient in and of itself to bring about what we forgot about the choice of why we are here in the first place.

    • CM – You made my day – “As such, choice exists through the remaining possibilities that are necessary but not sufficient in and of itself to bring about what we forgot about the choice of why we are here in the first place. ” Let’s get REAL people, we don’t know why, and a lot of the baloney diatribe out there is a compulsive need to know and to justify and rationalize in order to give anchor to the unknown. Give up the need to know – that is the challenge.

    • Wow. That was a thoughtful approach to some of the deeper questions of one’s approach to astrological analysis. I wish I could lift you, wholesale, from wherever you are and sit you down with a nice glass of wine. Or two. For about a month.

      I am as guilty as the rest of “think positively and everything will be swell” in many ways. I think you’ve soundly thrashed me for it. Deservedly.

      More, please.

  • Heated debate! I get a bit a buzz from this kind of a thing, so I’m glad you recorded and put this up. Eric’s point about the complexity of our world today, compared to that of when the foundations of the astrological system were developed, does mean our ability to jump directly to objectively correlated events is perhaps somewhat limited. When social and geographical factors are relatively stable and constrained within a limited range, it is much easier to make objective predictions. I forget the exact term Eric used, but I like the idea of “archetypal correlation” where the symbols of astrology in certain configurations seem to resonate at different levels of reality, including the world of objective events.

    However, I do feel Eric failed to adequately answer your point, Chris, about the necessity and value of understanding the origins of astrology. Eric’s reply seemed to be that because he was coming from a “post-Saturnian” viewpoint, that is enough of a rationale to discard or ignore the classical Hellenistic framework. But even in his appeal to Saturn and going beyond, he is already using the language and framework of that classical model. To borrow from the metaphor of language, it would be like being a native English speaker and incorporating Latin neologisms in speech and claiming that one had license to do so because one lived in a post-Latin world. Latin, of course, learned as a full language in itself, is capable of expression that one who merely borrows words and phrases from it could not. I thought you argumed your point well about being able to make more precise and expressive statements in astrology through the study of classical technique and philosophy. As an acupuncturist who was trained to take seriously the long tradition of Chinese medicine, I am fully behind the idea that one should endeavor to master (as much as possible) what has come before, prior to even attempting to make one’s own innovations.

    • I hadn’t finished listening to the debate when I posted my last comment, but as it goes on, I’m having more and more difficulty finishing it (and it’s not just the audio quality). My feeling, Chris, is that you may not have picked the best debate partner for this, the ideal defender of modern astrologer with whom to engage in a rigorous debate. What I always appreciated about your podcast and your perspective is that you do your research, you try to make the clearest arguments you can, and you’ve been transparent about the ways your opinions have evolved through your own experience as well as through your conversations with other astrologers. Eric unfortunately seems to demonstrate quite the opposite tendencies. It is telling that you asked him many more questions, while he seemed more intent on professing his views and when he did ask questions, they seemed sarcastic in tone. I think a better debate would have been with another astrologer who has studied the classical techniques but whose approach and experience emphasizes the modern approach. Such a debater could play devil’s advocate and argue for a pure modern approach even though she/he might incorporate classical techniques, while you could do likewise and argue a pure classical approach even though you yourself incorporate modern ideas. And when the subject of those classical techniques comes up, such a debater would be able to respond to you from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.

      I am not unsympathetic to Eric’s repeated insistence on seeing the dream from the trans-Saturnian standpoint (a seeming catch all for non-dualistic ideas). But it is a fallacy for him to claim that distinctions of positive and negative, benefic and malefic, deny or negate this non-dualistic perspective. Dualistic distinctions are only problematic when the underlying unity and holism is discarded or forgotten, and only when there is attachment to those distinctions. In meditation practice, which Eric should be well acquainted with as a graduate of Naropa, there is a tradition of labeling or noting of experience, whereby such distinctions can be raised directly into awareness, but where one learns to untether positive or negative from their corresponding habitual reactions of craving and aversion. In the same way, it seems that astrology has the language to speak of these distinctions as they apply to the subjective, relative dimension, while as a symbolic construct, allows of a certain distance and objectivity for someone to look at these elements more dispassionately, and within the context of the greater *whole.* I agree that it’s very much a problem if classical techniques are used to make fatalistic statements and predictions about another’s life because it inclines a person’s mind toward confirmation bias, looking for these positive and negative outcomes. By the same token, a modern astrologer that does not admit of “negative” possibilities and tendencies creates a similar problem of confirmation bias that might make someone delusionally optimistic, and support them in their refusal to face challenges and difficult truths. My problem with Eric’s standpoint is that he collapses the relative and absolute dimensions, and subsumes the relative into the absolute, places the absolute in a hierarchical position of superiority. Perhaps in his private consultations he really does attend seriously and compassionately to the “saturnian” realm, but his manner of speech in this debate suggests that saturnian consciousness is a lower/inferior level of consciousness, which has deleterious implications for those he is consulting.

      Despite the numerous, and possibly unbridgeable, disagreements you and Eric are having in this debate, it does seem that you share a similar aim with regards to your clients. You both appear to care very much that your clients walk away from a consultation with greater awareness (and thus greater freedom). I may not listen until the end of the debate, but I hope that is where you two arrive at by its conclusion.

  • This debate was difficult to listen to because of Eric Meyers aggressive and ill mannered behavior. His constant interruptions and raised voice discredited him far more than any of his arguments could support his ideas. In future debates it would be good to have a moderator that would keep such interruptions in check as I wanted to hear the entirety of Brennan’s responses and questions and was continuously frustrated by Meyer’s inability to let another person finish a sentence.

  • It is a difficult matter to unlearn your learning no matter how strong – or rational – the impetus might be. I speak from experience – I educated myself in modern spiritual and psychological astrology over many decades – and established a practice/study base on those learned principles. Yet, when presented with Hellenistic/Traditional conceptualizations and philosophies I reached out (and continue doing so) to assimilate and understand those perspectives. And I’ve come to appreciate just how important those perspectives are – in some instances I find myself right back in Kansas so to speak… but I’m hoping that – like Dorothy – I’m developing a deeper understanding of and perspective on a discipline I hold dear.

    It hasn’t been easy – but it can be done. And it must be done in my opinion before one can intimately understand and appreciate astrology’s true providence – both on physical/objective and metaphysical/subjective levels. As soon as you find yourself thinking you don’t need to learn anymore you’ve begun to calcify, to Saturnize – no matter how transcendent you might be… the Egyptians and the Greeks knew this – prepare for the metaphysical, but remember you live in the physical… both are inextricably and intricately connected…

    “As above, so below…”

    Astrology as a vehicle for transformation has been a vital current for many millennia – long before we re-directed our spiritual understanding of Ouranos, Poseidon and Hades onto two gas giants and an ice denizen beginning in 1781… Astrology was Fractal (the time lord systems) before Fractal was cool; astrology (in the form of the Lots) anticipated quantum thought (entanglement, spooky action, wormholes) – again millennia – before quantum physics…

    Ultimately this might undermine your premise for the debate Chris, as Moderns who absorb the history of the astrological Tradition are irrevocably transformed… oftentimes finding positions that are no longer adversarial… so it might be difficult to find an effective debating partner.

    And in the final analysis there is no Traditional, Hellenistic or Modern astrology – just astrology… in my opinion.

  • The length of the above comments speaks to the cotradictions inherent in astrological theory vis-a-vis destiny & accident. As G. Cornelius points out, all astrological influence needs to be seen as analogy. The context being the specific life experience of each individual.
    We traditionalists use classical concepts in a post-modern world. Classical = conservatism by nature, post-modernism= “a little bit of everything for everybody”. It’s hard to find a middle ground for agreement between these two modes of being, one conservative, the other revolutionary- and, perhaps, liberating.
    Ptolemy says, the sun revolves around the earth, according to the senses.
    Ficino says , the purpose of saturn is the annihilation of matter, so spirit can manifest.

  • The horoscope is a map, a navigation tool. Some maps are more sophisticated and detailed than others. Sometimes detail is useful. Sometimes it is not. Different maps contain different details. They are still maps useful for various types of navigation.
    Astrology is the logic of heaven and earth and everything that moves in between. What is above, what is below, and what is in between. Astrology uses maps as tools but it is not exclusively dependent on them. The language of the stars can be expressed with or without a horoscope. The language of astrology is not dependent on the horoscope. The horoscope is one form of astrological expression.
    There are many forms of astrological expression. Words are probably the lowest or least valid use of astrology.

  • At 34:50 (34 minutes, 50 seconds), Mr. Meyers claims that shamanic work, altered-state consciousness, is new to our time and the ancients knew nothing of this. That statement totally reveals Mr. Meyers’ ignorance of history. IF he had studied ANY shamanic discipline, even just at the introductory level, he would have been aware that the ancients used altered-state consciousness and dreamwork extensively. In Australia, the concept of entering “The Dreamtime” to make changes in the current reality goes back at least 40,000 years. Celtic shamanism goes back at least as far as the culture which built Stonehenge, and most likely further. Mr. Meyers needs to go back to school and learn the history of that which he claims to teach.

  • I think this debate would have been more useful if in the beginning Chris and Eric had laid out a simple definition of Ancient and Modern Astrology that they were working from that included particular points of conflict and focused on discussing this points.
    I enjoyed this, but would like to see it happen again in a more structured context as there are a lot of particular topics I’d like to see covered in and of themselves, like:
    • Ancient acknowledges the dark side and Modern does not.
    • Ancient is more compassionate than Modern.
    • Ancient uses 7 planets. Modern uses what is currently known. and why 7 is bette for worse)
    • I felt like there was actually a lot more agreement and the differences were not clearly expressed.
    • archetypally predictive
    • difference in the number of planets
    •purpose and use
    • top 3 strengths that one has over the other
    • top 3 weaknesses one has over the other
    • subjective/objective differences
    • healthy mind vs sick souled (William James: The Varieties of Religious Experience)
    • counseling methodology
    • different philosophies of meanings
    • complexity in technique vs complexity in intuition
    • benefic/malefic vs easy/challenging,
    • Ancient ‘spirituality’ vs Modern Psychology

    i do much appreciate all the work that goes into an event like this so i hope my constructive criticisms aren’t deeming of that effort and contrition to the astrological community that i believe these pod casts offer. great work, Chris. please keep it up!

  • BTW, I found the course descriptions at the Academy of AstroPsychology to be a good example of a modern philosophy of astrology that outright mentions it’s difference with Ancient.

    “101 Foundations of AstroPsychology
    AstroPsychology differs from traditional, event-oriented astrology by virtue of its growth oriented, psychological focus. In this course, astrological archetypes are introduced as geometric forms having four modes: sign, planet, house, and aspect. The zodiac is depicted as a symbolic map of the human psyche in which each sign represents a fundamental human need, archetypal character(s), developmental stage, and behavioral style. Each planet is described as a psychological function that is geared toward satisfying the primary need of its associated sign(s). Houses are introduced as environmental stages upon which planets enact their roles, and aspects are defined as angular relationships between planets that are subjectively experienced as internal dialogues. Outer events have tremendous significance, but they are understood as synchronistic reflections of an evolving psychic structure and as vehicles and catalysts to further development.”


  • Eric is advocating a type of ‘Modern’ astrology which is very different to other (current) models or practices. Many modern astrologers, particulary those who apply a more Hermetic/Neo Platonic – Depth Psychology approach (popular, if not mainstream in Europe in the recent past) would not empathise with or agree with many, even the thrust, of Eric’s views, or paradigm. As such presenting this as a trad-modern debate seems misleading.

    • That is true that Eric’s approach is a bit idiosyncratic (so is mine for that matter), but I’m not sure that it is entirely misleading to frame this as a traditional versus modern debate because many of Eric’s views are very much present in most mainstream modern astrology – even the psychological approach. Eric just takes some of those views much further or to a greater extreme than some modern astrologers might be comfortable, although that is one of the reasons why I wanted to do the debate, because I then we can talk about what happens when you take certain ideas to their ultimate conclusion.

      Additionally, it is Eric himself that frames the type of astrology outlined in his book as an ultra modern approach that rejects many traditional assumptions. So, that was the other reason that it ended up getting framed that way. I sort of alluded to this at the beginning of the debate when I mentioned that he had given a lecture for our group a few months earlier where he outlined the approach he was proposing and how it contrasts with earlier traditions, which is what made me think about doing the debate.

      It would be interesting to have this sort of discussion or debate with other modern schools though, since clearly modern astrology isn’t really a monolithic approach, at least any more than traditional astrology is for that matter.

      • i think Eric is expressing a ‘new’ stage of Modern that focuses on Consciousness and Integral ideas — which builds on a depth psychology foundation, but is… well let me say depth psychology is more soul(Water) centered and consciousness is spirit(Fire) centered although Integral is meant to integrate the many mutations of consciousness (Gebser, Aurobindo).
        but i think key to Modern IS the discontinuity from a traditional methodology or philosophy of astrology that allows for greater use of intuition which consequentially results in many different kinds of Modern. not like you can reject your roots and then say other people who do are heretical. the problem is that — i find — it’s had to develop coherency simply from intuition, so you get a great variation in terminology and method and theory.

      • It might be we have been mixing with different types of astrologers. My impression is, (I’m aware you and Eric were only briefly outlining your notions), that were I to ask the astrologers I have been engaged with over the last 30 plus years, (primarily European, and mainly Psychological astrologers), whose cosmology and even horoscopy they resonated with more it would probably be yours rather than Eric’s. Eric seems to be involved with Evolutionary Astrology, or a form of, which I understand is more known about and of interest to American astrologers. Perhaps not surprisingly as the early to mid 20th century Spiritual-Theosophical approach, which is broadly similar, did not appear to be so dismissed by or usurped by the emerging Naturalist and Psychological movements which manifested more overtly in the last few decades of the 20th century.

        Clearly this is a complex , convoluted and often misunderstood subject. Not helped by people like Glenn Perry or John Frawley misunderstanding or misrepresenting the past or the present. Astrologers such as Robert Hand, Liz Greene, Nick Campion…. would be interesting for you to discuss this issue with, if you haven’t already, as they would likely have a much fuller and more reliable grasp of Western Astrological history and practice.

  • At 34:50 (34 minutes, 50 seconds), Mr. Meyers claims that shamanic work, altered-state consciousness, is new to our time and the ancients knew nothing of this. That statement totally reveals Mr. Meyers’ ignorance of history. IF he had studied ANY shamanic discipline, even just at the introductory level, he would have been aware that the ancients used altered-state consciousness and dreamwork extensively. In Australia, the concept of entering “The Dreamtime” to make changes in the current reality goes back at least 40,000 years. Celtic shamanism goes back at least as far as the culture which built Stonehenge, and most likely further. Mr. Meyers needs to go back to school and learn the history of that which he claims to teach. Thanks for sharing this news.

    Best Regards!

  • I finally listened to this in its entirety. I have to say that I agreed with quite a lot of what Eric had to say and even with much of his approach, I just wish he would humble himself and learn more about the nuances of the traditional methods, which actually yield greater psychological and spiritual insight than most modern astrological techniques and which I myself have found to be very compatible with Dane Rudhyar’s vision for astrology. It just depends upon how one translates those techniques into information. One can focus on prediction with such techniques or one can use them to shed greater light upon the inner life of the person – this is a matter of perspective because the techniques are multi-dimensional. It seemed as though Eric’s ego began to show itself when he didn’t want to acknowledge that perhaps he didn’t quite understand the ancient perspectives on dignity. The spiritual side of traditional astrology is more concealed than the predictive side (which is more apparent) and therefore a proper study of the texts means reading between the lines to find those gems of spiritual insight, but they weren’t often laid out in front of you in the bastardized form it generally is today, especially in the highly questionable paradigm of “evolutionary astrology”, which often seeks to reduce everything to a past life etc. One such example I can give is when Bonatti discusses the pars hyleg.