The Differences and Similarities
Between...
'Uranian Astrology'
'The HamburgSchool'
'Cosmobiology'
Witte started
it all back in the 1920's, in Germany. This system of astrology evolved
into what was to be known as 'The Hamburg School'. Ebertin left this group
and formed a simplified (but nevertheless clear and accurate!) approach
that he termed 'Cosmobiology'. Through what I believe to be good
marketing skills, Cosmobiology is today much more widely accepted than
The Hamburg School's techniques. In fact, Cosmobiology is probably
more widespread than 'Uranian' astrology, a term coined in the USA and
initially taught in the 50's and 60's by Hans Niggeman in New York City.
The Hamburg
School represents the core teachings. It has a very traditional approach
when compared to 'Uranian Astrology' which tends to be eclectic.
Generally, house systems and soft aspects are disregarded, but there are
exceptions. A group of astrologers still meet regularly in Hamburg,
Germany, as they have done so for over sixty years. In my opinion,
their research and subsequent verification of techniques is nothing short
of astounding. This 'school' is headed by Udo Rudolf, now in his late 70's.
It could easily be argued that the Hamburg School techniques are themost
accurate and reliable. I have heard it described that the Hamburg
School is a subset of Uranian astrology (and vice-versa), but this may
be interpreted in a negative sense which is not intended.
Cosmobiology
does not use the Transneptunian Planets, nor does it use the complex system
of 'planetary pictures' (eg. A + B - C). Direct and indirect midpoints
are used, and house systems are disregarded. To get a feel for Cosmobiology,
have a look at Ebertin's Combination of Stellar Influences ;
this is a book that every astrologer should have.
Cosmobiology uses both direct and
indirect midpoints. There used to be a
tendency to emphasise the direct
ones, but experience has shown the indirect
ones to be as important. Cosmobiology
tends not to use the 22.5 aspects. It
is more common to focus on the
8th harmonic and to downplay the use of the so-called
"soft aspects" also. Cosmobiology generally ignores the houses,
zodiac and TNP's.
The other main differences are the
dial styles. Ebertin developed the
cosmogram; a mix of a 360 wheel
and 90 degree dial. He also used a 45 degree graph format as the basis
of a life diagram by solar arc and secondary
progression. I don't know if these
are used in Uranian. To some astrologers, there is not a lot of difference
between Uranian and Cosmobiology. The most obvious is Cosmobiology's non-use
of the TNP's and planetary pictures.
Can you
simply add the Transneptunian Planets to traditional astrological charts
? Yes and no... if you want to do real Uranian work, especially
the Hamburg School techniques, then the answer is NO ! However, using
the TNP's by looking at hard aspects in a natal chart (down to 22.5 degrees)
can give you insights that just cannot be seen by other methods, but remember
to use tight orbs of less than one degree.
** Many people coming to "Uranian"
Astrology don't realise that the system has been evolving over the last
50 years in Hamburg, and much of the older methods have now been replaced
by techniques that have been well researched by the Hamburg Study Group,
and this book covers many of these methods.
It would
be only honest and fair to say that there has been dissension and conflict
between these three groups of astrologers. In fact, I still notice
this occasionally, and I see it as the age-old forms of bias, prejudice,
arrogance and jealousy. This type of negativity is unnecessary, to
say the least. After all, we are in the later part of the 1990's.
Let's hope that the Internet can provide better communication and education
that not only will dispel such conflict, but will advance each of the three
types of astrology.
- Steve
For corrections and additions, please email me.
Thanks
- Steve
|