“Astrology is a science which must be restored to its original beauty and truth ….”
- Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul
“In ancient days it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system and that around it revolved the sun and all the other planets. This was the exoteric knowledge and position, though not the esoteric understanding. Later, when further discoveries brought more light to the human mind, our planet was decentralized and the truth was more clearly seen, though much remains as yet to be discovered and may even be of as revolutionary a nature. From certain astrological angles, a similar process of decentralization must take place and the solar system must no longer be regarded as a point around which the zodiac revolves or through which the sun passes in its great cycle of approximately 25,000 years. Astrologers with insight may deny that this is the commonly accepted attitude. Yet – for purposes of clarity and in connection with the general public – the inference is permitted and accepted by the ignorant. Upon this theory anent the zodiac rests very largely what we call the Great Illusion, and I would have  you bear this in mind as you study with me the newer approaches of this greatest and oldest of all the sciences. Astrology is a science which must be restored to its original beauty and truth before the world can gain a truer perspective and a more just and accurate appreciation of the divine Plan, as it is expressed at this time through the Wisdom of the Ages.”
Chapter: Three Basic Statements from Esoteric Astrology  Alice Bailey, Djwhal Khul
” … all now said must be wrong, calling a person born under Aries, who really was born when the sun was to be seen among the stars of Pisces, **two signs to which astrologers give very different meanings.” – Frances Rollerston
“The statement is frequently made that astrology is an exact science but that is far from correct in spite of the many mathematical computations. Astrology is based, curiously enough, upon illusion for, as well you know, the zodiac is naught but the imaginary path of the sun through the heavens, and this as it appears from the standpoint of our totally insignificant planet. The sun is not, as stated, in any sign of the zodiac. It simply appears to be so as it passes between our little sphere, the Earth, and the constellations at any particular time or season.
Astrology affords a remarkable evidence of the meanings anciently given to the twelve signs, and of the importance of which those meanings were considered to be to mankind. But in modern times people are said to be born under one sign, while in reality they are born under another, because the sun is now seen among different stars at the equinoxes, and consequently in all other months, from what he was when the globes and maps that modern astrologers use were first made.* Therefore all now said must be wrong, calling a person born under Aries, who really was born when the sun was to be seen among the stars of Pisces, two signs to which astrologers give very different meanings.** This kind of fortune-telling is spoken of in the Bible (Isa 47:13; Deut 10:10) as false, and to be punished. It was much cultivated among the Egyptians, and it has been said that among the figures of the planisphere of Dendera may be traced the horoscope of Cesarion, the son of Cleopatra. If this were so, it could not affect the high antiquity attributed from the positions of the solstices, to this zodiac.
* The Penny Cyclopaedia, on astronomy, says, “Astrologers do not allow for the precession of the equinoxes, their Aries being the first thirty degrees of the ecliptic, not the constellation.”
** “Aries they call a fiery, Pisces a watery sign, and predict accordingly.”
From Mazzaroth, or The Constellations by Frances Rollerston at Philologos Religious Online Books
“Scientific objectivity, in point of fact — this subjectivity of scientists — results from the acceptance of methods, practices, and theories adjudicated by a community of authoritative experts.”
- Patrice Guinard, Ph.D.
“In the 20th century mechanical physics has become probabilistic. Experiments are meant to corroborate a probability of mass. By operating on quantitative rather than qualitative elements, it presupposes the comparability of phenomena. In experimental applications the utilitarian criterion decides the cognitive design. Theories are selected according to their efficaciousness, their ability to perform, or their technological effect. Any direction capable of going beyond normalized praxis and leading to transcendental knowledge is eliminated. Thomas Kuhn shows the incommensurability of scientific theories across the centuries and their coincidence with periods of “crisis” which precede the emergence of a new “paradigm.” He describes “the development of science as a succession of traditionalist periods punctuated by non-cumulative ruptures.”
Scientific ideology claims a monopoly on knowledge and on impersonal objectivity, as well. Scientific objectivity, in point of fact — this subjectivity of scientists — results from the acceptance of methods, practices, and theories adjudicated by a community of authoritative experts. Scientific research relies on institutionalized socio-cultural praxis and on the ideological consensus which it influences. It codifies itself in a system of values and collective beliefs: in the past it was the theory of the ethers, today it is the Big Bang; again in the past it was the practice of bleeding, today one touts the practices of disinfection and vaccination. From this point of view, scientific rationality is not more “objective” than Sumerian cosmology or Bantu mythology. Like all knowledge, it is in part a fiction, a presumption on the part of the human mind, an artifact of consciousness.”
Astrology: The Manifesto 1/4 by Patrice Guinard, Ph.D. — translation Matyas Becvarov at C.U.R.A. The International Astrology Research Center
“One cannot pair off twelve signs and twelve houses when they run in opposite directions. Yet, this is precisely what the tropicalists have attempted to do.” - Cyril Fagan
“Ed. N.: This text is the 19th chapter of Cyril Fagan’s Astrological origins (St Paul (Minn.), Llewellyn Publications, 1971, p.161-170). It completes my own views about the subject. I’ve known its existence only in Dec. 1991, nine years after my “discovery” of the Dominion, that is, the set of the 8 domains of the Celestial Sphere.
 Every student of astrology knows that the modern horoscope form is divided into twelve sectors numbered counterclockwise, commencing with the Ascendant or cusp of the 1st house. Thus divided, the horoscope form represents the invisible envelope, or aura, that is supposed to surround the earth and which revolves pari passu with the rotation of the earth on its own axis. This envelope is also supposed to move with the individual concerned wherever he goes, always maintaining the same orientation. Thus, the 1st house always commences with the eastern horizon. The Greeks called such a scheme the Dodekotopos – dodeko meaning twelve and topos meaning places. Moreover, the Greeks made it synchronize with the signs of the zodiac, commencing with Aries 0°, notwithstanding the fact that the order of the houses runs from west to east, whereas the signs of the zodiac run from east to west. Hence, they are incompatible. One cannot pair off twelve signs and twelve houses when they run in opposite directions. Yet, this is precisely what the tropicalists have attempted to do. [Ed. N. : I do not see any relationship with the question of zodiac.] Moreover, in the Arctic and Antarctic circles where certain zodiacal signs never rise above the horizon, while others never set below it, such a synchronization collapses completely.[162-163]”
Cyril Fagan: The Oktotopos (with comments by Patrice Guinard), (version 1.1 : 01.2000)
Brief (if not grossly oversimplified) History of the Tropical Zodiac – Rev. Donna J. Provancher