Here is the draft of the preface to a new book I am working on, called Career Astrology.
Astrology of Career
By Vic DiCara
In this compact book I will explore the nitty gritty details and techniques involved in accurately assessing the difficult task of determining a person’s most ideal career from their horoscope. Let’s get a few important topics clear right away:
Many, many, many articles and books have been written using the horoscopes of famous people as examples of how to assess an ideal career. It goes something like this, “Here is the horoscope of a famous Hollywood actress. These are the astrological reasons why she is an actress…” That sort of thing is not useful. It is too easy, and it is not real-life at all. In real life situations you are looking at the horoscopes of people whose career you don’t know! You have to figure out their career by looking at the horoscope. It is a whole different ballgame from being handed a horoscope stamped “Actress” and being asked, “OK explain why she is an actress.”
So in this book, we are not going to fall into this easy trap. We are going to do just the opposite. I will hand myself a horoscope marked “Actress” and will set about to figure out how the horoscope might show her to be a zillion other things besides an actress! Then we will have to figure out why she wound up an actress and not one of the other possibilities we saw in the horoscope. This is a hell of a lot more tiring and exhaustive, but it will really teach us how to asses a horoscope for it’s ideal career.
Another thing is that principles which only work in one or two horoscopes aren’t worth much to a real astrologer trying to guide real people in the real world. We need to find principles that work on all horoscopes, or at least on the significant majority of them. To get there we are going to have to take what worked on our first example horoscope and see what results it gives us when applied as is to our second example horoscope, and so on. In so doing we will weed out what theories that were coincidentally accurate vs. theories that are truly accurate.
Being this thorough isn’t easy, but it gives very strong results fairly quickly. So we don’t need to look at more than about a half dozen horoscopes before we will gain a truly outstanding grasp of how to assess career.
Now, some technical stuff to get out in the open ASAP:
1. You already need to know the basics of how astrology works. This book is going to jump headfirst into nuts and bolts practical working details relevant to professional grade astrologers. At the very least you should already be intimately familiar with all the material in my “101” textbook, Symbolic Keys of Astrology. If you have also surveyed my “201” textbook, Unlocking the Meanings of a Horoscope, all the better.
2. I use “ancient” astrology. I don’t necessarily always call it “Vedic” astrology mainly because that lumps me in with a large group of astrologers who I am not really sure if I ought to jump to be lumped in with. Also, I do like to believe that the ancient principles of astrology recorded in Sanskrit were fairly universal to the entire earth, not just an “Indian thing.” I also believe that ancient principles are better because (a) ancient people were more in touch with spirituality and mysticism than we are, and (b) a great deal of confusion caused by an erroneous application of the tropical zodiac created the necessity that was the mother of the invention of all the more modern astrological ideas and theories. If we avoid the erroneous application of the tropical zodiac, we zero out the need for all those inventions and can rely soundly on the very mystical wisdom and knowledge of the ancient seers.
3. Let me clarify what my idea of “ancient” astrology is.
a. Sidereal zodiac. Do not get me wrong, I absolutely do not think that the tropical zodiac is “wrong” or “bogus.” The tropical zodiac is also used by ancient astrology as recorded in Sanskrit texts. However it is used for calculation of seasons , and the creation of the seasonal calendar, not for Natal astrology. The Sidereal zodiac and the Tropical zodiac both have their uses in ancient astrology, the error is to use one where the other is supposed to be used. The tropical zodiac defines the seasons and months of the practical year. To use a sidereal zodiac for this (which by the way is the common practice in modern India) is wrong. The sidereal zodiac defines the twelve portions of the zodiac stars out in space, which the planets actually move through. It is to be used for natal astrology and the interpretation of planets in signs and houses. To use a tropical zodiac for this purpose is wrong and generates the confusion that necessitates all the flurry of new inventions in modern astrology. The tropical zodiac does have some effect on natal interpretation, because it factors into several of the calculations to determine the sixfold-strengths of the planets (ṣaḍ-bāla). But the actual charts used for natal interpretation are to utilize the sidereal zodiac, in the opinion of ancient astrology as I understand it. So in this book you will find only the sidereal representations of zodiac charts.
b. Whole sign houses. Unequal house systems are useful, but according to how I understand ancient astrology they are not at all the primary system to be used for natal astrology. So in this book you will see all charts presented and examined using whole sign houses.
c. Outer planets. There are 7 planets in ancient astrology. Additionally there are the two nodes of the moon which are extremely relevant. These are the 9 planetary points I will utilize in the course of this book. There are other planets besides these in ancient astrology. They are called sub-planets (upa-graha). However they are too sophisticated for the current scope of study. We will leave them out of this and pray it is not a grave error to do so. Modern outer planets take a third-row seat behind these sub-planets, in my opinion. So we will not discuss them in this book. We want to narrow down our variables to the most tried and true: 7 real planets and 2 lunar nodes.
d. Aspects are by degree! I know every “Vedic” astrologer and his or her mother’s uncle thinks things like “Planets aspect the 7th house from them” but that is only partially true, regardless of how many people think this way. The correct thing to say is that planets aspect their degree in the 7th sign from them, in other words the aspect 180° from their position, and the amount of influence from their aspect varies depending on how near to far the aspected cusp or planet is from that exact 180° focal point. It is something like the “orb of influence” theory more recent astrologers have come up with, but is more sophisticated. For a full examination of true Vedic planetary aspects you can consult my book, Unlocking the Meanings of a Horoscope, which has an entire chapter dedicated to the subject.
e. Dashas are by nakshatra year! Not by modern calendar year. Again, I know that every astrologer and his mother’s brother’s aunt believes that the Moon dasha is 10 calendar years long, however it is not true. Or at least, it is not what the ancient texts tell us. The ancient text specifies to use nakshatra time for predictive astrology. The modern calendar year is 364 and a quarter “days” long. The nakshatra year is the equivalent of just about 359 “days” long. That makes for a bit of a difference. It is not a huge bone of contention in this book, because what we are examining primarily is dasha-independent. However I want to make it clear where the dasha dates I will use come from, just so everyone from here to Jupiter doesn’t write me saying, “there are typos in your book, you calculated the dashas wrong according to my such-and-such-software.”
- Vic DiCara
© 2011 Vic DiCara, All Rights Reserved