Humanism, Theism, and Astrology

Since the beginning of these forecasts in 1999, there has been a tension between "astrological humanism," which is the prevailing trend in astrology, and "astrological theism," which is my own orientation. G*d is supreme--the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Lord Christ Jesus. That is not only my orientation but my firm knowledge. So how could I deny it and pretend to be a humanist? 

Yet--and here begins the perilous dialectic--if I am to communicate astrological truths or hypotheses or surmises or helpful clues to "the world," which includes mostly non-theists, mostly those who do not believe in God, it is disturbing to them if I use theistic language all the time. I have offended quite a few of them in that regard, and they stop reading. That is not a loss to me, but it is to them; and perhaps a loss to myself in the wider sense because if my mission is to help people with astrology, it is a partly failed mission if I am unable to help those who do not believe in God or believe in a God "other than" the one I believe in.

It seems an impossible situation. I "search the scriptures" every day for a solution. The answer seems to be "Keep on with it." Which I try to do. 

The number of Christians who are even able to appreciate the truths of astrology is very small. Yet the astrologer most important to me is Marc Edmund Jones, who was a Presbyterian pastor. The astrologer John Lilly, active during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, wrote a major book named Christian Astrology. In these days, most Christians have been told that astrology conflicts with the Bible and is Satanic. Yet the best translation of the Bible says that the three men who first knew of the Messiah were astrologers. 

The situation is compounded because I am also a Hindu, that is, a Vaishnava Hindu, believing in the Supreme Lord Vishnu. He took form as Rama, as Krishna, and as Sri Aurobindo. Millions believe he also took form as Sai Baba. Sri Aurobindo is the one of whom I am most certain, because of the prima facie nonpareil stupendous unparalleled miraculous quality of every sentence and paragraph he every wrote (thousands of pages). He is the teacher for this age, or the best one I know. (Sai Baba is also a teacher for this time, but his approach was more local, in a sense, or centered in the traditional teachings and practices of Hinduism in India, directed with Avataric love toward the masses rather than toward the elite few who can appreciate Sri Aurobindo's writings.)

I find no essential conflict between esoteric Christianity, as taught by, for example, Rudolf Steiner, Max Heindel, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Fillmore, Edgar Cayce, Corinne Heline, Alice Bailey, Marc Edmund Jones and many others, and esoteric Hinduism as taught by Sri Aurobindo. To reconcile their apparent divergences would require a book rather than this essay. But they are essentially harmonious with each other. One way to put it would be, Sri Aurobindo understood esoteric Christianity, that is, the deeper, internal and most-essentially real teachings of Jesus, fully, although his way of stating his superb and perfect teaching was more along the lines of the traditional wisdom of India. 

Yet the humanism of the time is alien to all that. "Don't tell me about your pseudo-God! I have had enough of that. He is responsible for war, illness, death, terrorism, sectarian disagreements and persecutions. The only hope is intelligent and loving human beings trying to make things better." Okay. I get it. I used to believe it, almost, when I was a teenager. But something in me, my immortal soul, knew better. And anything which denies my immortal soul is alien to me.

And so I have to say, "mere" humanism is alien to me. But not, of course, the beautiful, loving, helpful and essential actions of non-believing humanists to save the planet and humanity. From my viewpoint, they are serving God's plan even though they don't believe in Him. (From their viewpoint, I am deluded about that. From my viewpoint, they don't understand God.)

I do not want to engage in that endless (until some individual End) dialogue in these forecasts. I am talking about it now because that feels imperative to me. I am hoping it will help you understand why I am compelled to mention God and Jesus and Sri Aurobindo in these reports. My doing that is one main reason why they would be unwelcome most places online, as in the Huffington Post for example. But I cannot deny what I know. 

On the other hand (it goes on and on) astrology and human life can be considered, and are by many, apart from any mystical, religious or higher-level philosophical orientation. I have learned a great deal from astrologers who do not share my spiritual orientation. Astrology, or much of it, is impersonal and true regardless of one's spiritual orientation. There are days when what I write in the forecasts does not mention anything superhuman. 

One question is, Is my attempt to please everyone a mistake? Should I direct these reports only to those who share a spiritual orientation of some kind? Probably that is what I am doing anyway. I note that they are not very popular! One or two "likes" on Facebook some days, when a picture of a cat gets 700 "likes." Oh well. I write it for "somebody" "somewhere."  Cats are more popular than G*d.

There is more to come about this, because of what I read and pondered this morning. It is all connected with the planet Saturn in Sagittarius now, a sign of religion. I read about the Pope this morning, and my Bible reading connected with that, and . . . I have a lot more to say. Before very long.

Extremely Unpopular Cosmic Piper                (I suppose two or three individuals might have read all this.)