Introduction
Yes, the word “creatolution” is a hybrid formed from “creationism” and “evolution.” It is pronounced “cree-ate-oh-loo-shin.” And “Astrospect” is a hybrid of the words “astrology” and “specifications.”

I coined both words. "Creatolution" was created to help make some points about implications of results obtained from research with this form of astrology. First, some words about its form:

• Astrospect astrology is different from either Western or Eastern (Vedic and Jyotisha, which I know nothing about) astrology. Its base is the sidereal (Eastern) zodiac, but it uses both birth and conception planets in one chart and adds their harmonics (3 through 14). So its approach is unique. Here are links discussing various pertinent aspects of this method: Home Page and About This Method, Principles for Reading These Charts, and Sidereal vs. Tropical Astrology, A Discussion.

• Actually, in order to see the points made below, acquaintance with more than the above papers is necessary. The reader should also have a basic foundation in the language (or code) of astrology. S/he must know the traditional meaning attributed to the signs, houses, planets, and Angles. An open mind willing to read and consider the research results presented on this site is also necessary.

That said, here are my statements with regard to what this astrology strongly suggests about our reality.

These Charts Are…
Maps of the consciousness represented by the term "ego," referred to as the self--which, as far as I can ascertain, esoteric parts of all religions as well as the metaphysical systems of Daoism and Hinduism state is a mental artifact. These selves, with a small "s," borrow their light of consciousness from the Self, also called Omniscience, God, Brahman, The Way. The former, no matter how brilliant or talented, is extremely limited and ephemeral, while the latter (I understand) is unlimited, eternal, and beyond human comprehension.

Ego maps contain the planets associated with the Pillar of Mercy (venus/jupiter/uranus) and the Pillar of Severity (mercury/mars/saturn) of Kabbalistic astrology (a sort of oxymoron since Kabbala, a form of esoteric Judaism, is either not concerned with astrology or has suppressed it) as portrayed by William S. Gray in his book The Ladder of Lights. See the paper on autism for a diagram and explanation. Here is the link: Paper on Autism Containing Diagram of Gray’s Assignment of Planets to the Sephira of the Tree of Life of the Kabbala ). Thus they clearly delineate our inherent human liability to pleasure and pain, and for such costly mental habits as anger, fear, jealousy, greed, hate.

As maps of our identities symbolizing our attachments, desires, and aversions, these charts represent the aspirations, defects, and sufferings of the ego, “our selves” and therefore represent what every Saint, Sage, and Master in the world has stated each of us must “die” to (not by violence) before we can find authentic Life.

They show the impurities of mind discussed in Eastern and Western religions. But it is not just about being a good or bad person. They show the nuts and bolts of the ego mind as written about in the book Maha Yoga by K. Lakshmana Sarma about the practical philosophy of the Indian saint Ramana Maharshi.

They can also be seen as maps of “mortal mind” as written about by Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science in her book Science and Health.

As specifications for identity created by limiting unlimited consciousness, they demonstrate, par excellence that ego is comprised of polarities of likes and dislikes as discussed in the books on mind--creator of ego--by Swami Sivananda.

Do they sponsor the major sins of Catholicism? Of course, but we don’t have to pin it down religion by religion. All religions and spiritual practices recognize the destruction of reality wreaked by desire,aversion and attachment.

In the language of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, our maps show all the “I’s” to which we must eventually bring objectivity, that is, impartiality and simultaneity. Again, ultimately that is, "die to."

They surely look like maps of the self as written about in The Book of Not Knowing: Exploring the True Nature of Self, Mind, and Consciousness by master martial artist Peter Ralston. It contains the best I have ever read description of the genesis of a self and thus makes quite clear why one would want to be free of it.

Two of the words Sri Mooji, of Advaita Vedanta lineage, uses to identify what these maps represent are "personhood" and "psychological identity." His satsangs can be found on Youtube.

In the language of Shakespeare in As You Like It, these maps describe our role to be acted on this stage of Earth consciousness. Because that is true, they show that our achievements as well as our failures are not as much “ours” as we prefer to believe.

Still, we are not robots. Our maps show patterns of primarily fixed consciousness. They contain the promise of change because ultimately consciousness is fluid, not fixed. And ultimately the whole of our charts meets the broader meaning of the Hindu concept of sanskaras (also spelled samskaras). Sanskaras are discussed candidly in the book Light on Life: The Yoga Journey to Wholeness, Inner Peace, and Ultimate Freedom (pp. 131-138, hb edition) by the internationally acclaimed teacher of yoga B.K.S. Iyengar.

Here, in an appendix, is the definition taken from Wikipedia on May 31, 2012: Go to Appendix to Read Wikipedia on Sanskaras .

My equations of an astrological chart with sanskaras is an important one. It helps explain the difference in reaction of different individuals to, for instance, the transit or progression of mars to a moon. The individual with past- or this-life tendencies (sanskaras) of unresolved anger will most likely react with anger. Individuals without such emphases are free to respond appropriately or not at all. Comprehending that, the road to more and more freedom becomes one of finding and implementing ways to reduce the sanskaras, that is, not just reacting. Whether they call it that or not, modern psychotherapies are also trying, with varying success, to address the reduction of sanskaras. So do other practices, one of which, of course, is Eight-Limbed yoga.

Judging from the description by Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, brain scientist, in her autobiography of her stroke entitled My Stroke of Insight: A Brain Scientist's Personal Journey, (I see) the Astrospect chart as primarily a map of the net contents of each individual's left brain. However, it also contains hints for each of us in how to move toward our right brain (ultimately a un-mappable area?), primarily through North Node behavior and/or golden benefics--the behaviors and experiences that naturally bring us to the joy of being, free from thought. Here is a short quote identifying the self/left brain correlation in Taylor's book: Among other things, our left hemisphere categorizes information into hierarchies including things that attract us (our likes) or repel us (our dislikes). It places the judgment of good on those things we like and bad on those things we dislike. Through the action of critical judgment and analysis, our left brain constantly compares us with everyone else. It keeps us abreast of where we stand on the financial scale, academic scale, honesty scale, generosity-of-spirit scale, and every other scale you can imagine. Our ego mind revels in our individuality, honors our uniqueness, and strives for independence. (page 33, hardcover edition). The book is fascinating and contains many more descriptions of the "world" differences between the left and right brains.

Another technique--they do not all have to be ancient or religious--which can lead to experiences of dissolving the self (and perhaps some sanskaras) is written about in the book The Open Focus Brain: Harnessing the Power of Attention to Heal Mind and Body, by Les Fehmi, PhD (and Jim Robbins) of . Princeton Biofeedback.

As maps of our individual consciousness, they are blueprints for producing everything about our existence—our bodies, our marriage, our homes, our finances, our health, talents and faults, our scandals, our deaths, and so on as shown by the many papers on this site. If you have read a variety of those papers and still do not believe charts are maps of consciousness, then follow the astrology of your own chart for a period of time. You will see it.

Thus they are in agreement with the conclusions of innumerable religious as well as philosophic mystics, East and West. That is, they prove, assuming results remain consistent, that it is consciousness that produces bodies and the lives that accompany them. It is not the other way around. That means our bodies do not, really, produce our minds as genetics and contemporary science would have us believe.

The apparent consciousness that is in DNA is from the same source as the consciousness represented by these charts. But DNA, for all its considerable influence, and even its formidably impressive promise of help to suffering humanity, is far more limited in scope than that Source. Relative to the world it exists in (which includes the overwhelming majority of us), DNA is valid. Understanding and exploring its validity will make an enormous difference in our lives. But it is a law-conformable servant, not a master.

Below are some others--here, and in this paper in general, we are interested in what they have in common, not how they differ--from (mostly) Western countries, who have put forward similar views on the ultimate reality of body and matter:

• Democritus, who wrote that “man lives plunged in a world of illusion and of deceptive forms which the vulgar take for reality.”
• Plato, who esteemed matter nothing and mind everything.
• Berkeley, who came to the conclusion that apart from some mind to perceive it, matter would be nonexistent.
• Jonathan Edwards, rated by A.M. Fairbairn as the highest speculative genius of the eighteenth century, who said that the “material universe exists only in the Mind."
• Kant who stated “the laws of nature are creations of our own understanding, acting upon the data of the senses."
• William Blake, who wrote that “man has no body distinct from his soul.”
• Laotze avowed “that matter is nothing but an appearance for our perception.”
• and Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, who wrote "Matter, or body, is but a false concept of mortal mind. This so-called mind builds its own superstructure, of which the material body is the grosser portion, but from first to last, the body is a sensuous, human concept." [see Science and Health, 177:10-14]
• from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay “The Transcendentalist” this longer quote on the nature of the Transcendentalist: "His thought—that is his Universe. His experience inclines him to behold the procession of facts you call the world, as flowing perpetually outward from an invisible, unsounded centre in himself, centre alike of him and of them, and necessitating him to regard all things as having a subjective or relative existence, relative to that Unknown Centre of him.” (page 195) From the previous page: "This manner of looking at things, transfers every object in nature from an independent and anomalous position without there, into the consciousness." From Emerson, Essays and Poems with notes for the essays written by Joel Porte and Notes for the poems written by Harold Bloom and Paul Kane.

[I owe most of those in the above list to Lyman P. Powell, younger contemporary of Mary Baker Eddy and author of the book about her of the same name, 1936, pp.107-108.]

Also from that book, a quote from Spenser's Faerie Queene (p. 257):

For of the soule, the bodie forme doth take,
For soule is forme, and doth the bodie make.

I believe the list could be much longer and that it would include similar statements from sages, saints and philosophers from all over the world. I am just not the person to make that learned list.

So, relative to contemporary American, perhaps European, perhaps world-wide scientific culture versus religious culture I have coined the word creatolution. That is...

• The creationists are right in that it is God or Self (who is, after all, Omniscient—all consciousness) who ultimately created this chimera called us and the world, though I doubt it was only several thousand years ago as Western biblical literalists would have us believe. It could have been any number (literally) of days, minutes, or years ago. After all, if something is Omniscience and Omnipotence, it can have created any world any when with any or all number of people and still made it contain all the changes implied by evolution, including carbon dating, as if it was formed over billions of years. After all, time is also an artifact. So, piece of cake for Omniscience.

• But, the evolutionists are also correct. Of course, worlds so created (no matter when or for how long or how ultimately unreal) would be law-conformable, that is, function according to various levels of laws and, thus, patterns. This has to be so because a world that lacks laws cannot be a world. Chaos does not form worlds…only patterns do. Without patterns we would not even have senses to perceive worlds. Even if this world is maya (illusion), within maya everything (except some subatomic particles through which the material world disappears into infinity) operates according to laws—-magnificent, incredible, fascinating laws. Otherwise, we couldn’t get fat (or healthy), operate cell phones, make clothing, walk, talk, or fall off mountains. There would not be a history of the development of, say, the rubber tire.

• Evolutionists are right in that there are astounding laws (that is, consciousness) operative in the apparent/real long physical history of rocks, plants, animals, man.

• But, the evolutionists are in error when they conclude that mind is created by body--that mind comes from evolving protoplasm, or even from brain. Here the creationists are correct: Omniscient mind, our ultimate sponsor, is hardly limited to brain, man, world, universe. When the life associated with each body "leaves," (i.e., the person dies) the body shows itself to be the inert matter--made up mostly of space--it actually is. And without its principal, consciousness, to sponsor it, body quickly ceases to exist.

• Generations of Eastern and Western Sages and Saints, and likely even some especially prescient individuals in aboriginal cultures, have known all this through experience. They just haven’t correlated it with the consciousness shown in astrological maps of individuals.

• They haven’t correlated it with astrological consciousness because traditional astrology of both East and West hasn’t been working with a full deck when it comes to research on people. I do not mean minds of individual astrologers are lacking part of the deck, though some people believe that to be the case with any astrologer. I mean the astrology with which both sides have been attempting their research is incomplete. How can their research bear fruit if their tool is defective? Whether sidereal or tropical, both groups of astrologers have only been working with the birth chart. The birth chart is only part of the astrological deck. Historically conception charts were considered, but no one ever came up with a conception chart that produced research results. The Astrospect does. Not only is the conception chart necessary for reliable research results, but birth and conception together are not developed into “world-producing codes” until the harmonics are added. With the Astrospect, astrology is given an improved research tool. Applying that tool to examination of many individual lives, the basic premise--our charts are maps of limited consciousness, borrowed from Omniscience, creating our worlds--can be proven.

• Both tropical and sidereal astrology have produced astonishingly good, successful astrologers and brilliant practitioners. That fact makes it seem both “work.” I have discussed what fosters their apparent equal validity in a paper discussing their practical differences. Here, again, is the link: Sidereal vs. Tropical Astrology, A Discussion.

But, my opinion, though based on reproducible results, amounts to little. If this method is productive of truth, and if it organizes data in a better way than has ever been done before, then it should be tested by others, especially scientists and scientific astrologers. Only, it should be done according to the guidelines set down in the papers on Method, Chart Reading Rules, and Formula on this site. Those principles and rules were not invented by me. They were uncovered, in much the same way an archeologist at a dig uncovers previous cultures, one brush stroke at a time. Or in the same way physical laws are uncovered by scientists. Scientists don't create those laws. They discern them, test them, and work with them. My emphasis on the empirically-derived principles of this method still leaves enormous room for that totally human propensity, innovation. The research needed to develop the "complete human astrological code" is enormous. It must explore and record variations, and their assumptions, produced by (1) our many cultural differences (across space and through time) and (2) our apparent differing degrees of development.

Of course, more would be possible for all of us if the following conditions were met: (1) a software existed which did more of the work, (2) a database existed with which to meaningfully collect results, (3) biographies were extensive and completely honest, (4) birth times, dates and places were recorded precisely and available to science, (5) causes of death were confirmed by autopsy, and (6) diagnoses were double-, even triple-checked.

Below, again, are links to those papers.

Star Flower, a rare 7-petaled flower
From Wildflowers of Michigan Field Guide, by Stan Tekiela

Contact the author at: sleeweidner@yahoo.com