Il est impossible de découvrir le moindre trait de ressemblance entre les parties du ciel et les figures que les astronomes y ont arbitrairement tracées; et de l'autre côté, le hasard est impossible.[1126]
Most certainly chance is “impossible.” There is no “chance” in Nature, wherein everything is mathematically coördinate, and inter-related in its units. Says Coleridge:
Chance is but the pseudonym of God [or Nature], for those particular cases which He does not choose to subscribe openly with His sign manual.
Replace the word “God” by Karma, and it will become an Eastern axiom. Therefore, the sidereal “prophecies” of the Zodiac, as they are called by Christian Mystics, never point to any one particular event, however solemn and sacred it may be for some one portion of humanity, but to ever-recurrent, periodical laws in Nature, understood only by the Initiates of the Sidereal Gods themselves.
No Occultist, no Astrologer of Eastern birth, will ever agree with Christian Mystics, or even with Kepler's mystical Astronomy, his great science and erudition notwithstanding; and this because, if his premisses are quite correct, his deductions therefrom are one-sided and biassed by Christian preconceptions. Where Kepler finds a prophecy directly pointing to the Saviour, other nations see a symbol of an eternal law, decreed for the actual Manvantara. Why see in Pisces a direct reference to Christ—one of the several world-reformers, a Saviour for his direct followers, but only a great and glorious Initiate [pg 717] for all the rest—when that constellation shines as a symbol of all the past, present, and future Spiritual Saviours, who dispense light and dispel mental darkness? Christian symbologists have tried to prove that this sign belonged to Ephraim, Joseph's son, the elect of Jacob, and that therefore, it was at the moment of the Sun's entering into the sign of Pisces, the Fish, that the “Elect Messiah,” the Ἰχθὺς of the first Christians, had to be born. But if Jesus of Nazareth was that Messiah, was he really born at that “moment,” or was his birth-hour thus fixed by the adaptation of Theologians, who sought only to make their preconceived ideas fit in with sidereal facts and popular belief? Everyone is aware that the real time and year of the birth of Jesus are totally unknown. And it is the Jews—whose forefathers made the word Dag signify both “Fish” and “Messiah” during the forced development of their rabbinical language—who are the first to deny this Christian claim. And what of the further facts that Brâhmans connect their “Messiah,” the eternal Avatâra Vishnu, with a Fish and the Deluge, and that the Babylonians also made a Fish and a Messiah of their Dag-On, the Man-Fish and Prophet?
There are learned iconoclasts among Egyptologists, who say that:
When the Pharisees sought a “sign from heaven,” Jesus said, “there shall no sign be given .... but the sign of the prophet Jonas.” (Mat., xvi. 4.).... The sign of Jonas is that of the Oan or Fish-Man of Nineveh.... Assuredly there was no other sign than that of the Sun reborn in Pisces. The voice of the Secret Wisdom says those who are looking for signs can have no other than that of the returning Fish-Man Ichthys, Oannes, or Jonas—who could not be made flesh.
It would appear that Kepler maintained it as a positive fact that, at the moment of the “incarnation,” all the planets were in conjunction in the sign Pisces, called by the Jewish Kabbalists the “constellation of the Messiah.” Kepler averred:
It is in this constellation that the star of the Magi is to be found.
This statement, quoted from Dr. Sepp[1127] by De Mirville, emboldened the latter to remark that: