Branches of Astrology
People say 'astrology' yet what they are often referring to is Natal astrology.
Mundane astrology is another branch of astrology that looks at the bigger picture, the world if you will, rather than the individual. The macro to the micro.
Working in the mundane, it is essential to maintain objectivity, dispassionate, in order to clearly see what is coming. Otherwise, one's personal rose-colored glasses of hopes and wishes will distort all your efforts.
Finding Perspective
In research, the importance of perspective becomes paramount; it is the lens through which you will view the information.
Getting perspective on a matter is similar to using the camera on your phone.
Are you going to take a close-up picture of yourself or are you going for a panoramic view, as if the picture was taken from the top of the Grand Canyon? How does an astrologer identify perspective?
The comparatively few books on mundane astrology versus the vast array on natal astrology is revealing when it comes to perspective.
The wide selection of books that use the natal chart for self-development, karma, past life issues, spirituality, sexuality, relationships, family, and even your pets, demonstrate the focus.
The natal chart will also be the basis for prediction techniques by progressions, returns, and transits including how to rectify that natal chart if needed. The dominate point of perspective has been on the self, the individual.
Focus on Uranus
Consider the focus in each of the main large branches in astrology of natal, horary or election, and mundane, which have their own way of interpreting the horoscope.
The natal branch focuses on self-understanding with the Sun as priority.
In horary and election astrology, the Moon is the central focus as co-ruler in the birth of an idea or question.
Mundane astrology encompasses a broad range of categories:
- Weather
- Epidemics
- Seismic events
- Financial forecasting
- National politics
Yet, unlike horary or natal, there has been a lack of consensus in mundane astrology, a vagueness, without a point of focus.
Astrological icons have long pointed to historical events coinciding to Uranus.
Richard Tarnas gave a striking example of the Uranus cycle that returned to within a degree on the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the start of the Civil War, and just before D-day.8
Andre Barbault revealed how the rhythms of the planetary cycles influence each another.9
The pioneering master, Charles Carter, indicated the need to study Uranus in Aries.10
In applying their suggestions, one would begin with Uranus in Aries, follow the Uranus cycle for correlations in history with attention to the cycles.
The lens has then been inverted from the individual natal (Sun), to the larger society (Uranus) as the focus in mundane astrology.
The eighty-four-year cycle of Uranus has roughly seven years spent in each sign.
This will equate to a fourth sign being passed in twenty-eight years (seven traditional planets multiplied by the four elements).
If you multiply three (modulations) of these twenty-eight-year time spans, the result will be eighty-four.
The twelve-year Jupiter returns (twelve signs or houses) multiplied by seven equals eighty-four.
Multiplying the eighty-four-year cycle of Uranus by twelve gives a total of one thousand and eight, just over a millennium.
Dane Rudhyar called it the great cycle of Uranus, who also linked Uranus with the larger rhythms and important changes in civilization.11
Once the focus is adjusted, the question for an astrologer interested in venturing into the mundane then becomes ‘how to’, what elements to utilize? Next Step
Notes
8. Richard Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View (New York: Viking Penguin, 2006), 118-119.
9. Andre Barbault, Planetary Cycles Mundane Astrology (London: The Astrological Association, 2016), 46, 51.
10. H. S. Green, Raphael, and C. E. O. Carter, Mundane Astrology: The Astrology of Nations and States (Bel Air, MD: Astrology Classics, 2004), 250.
11. Dane Rudhyar, Astrological Timing: The Transition to the New Age (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 59-60.