Question for you; if astrology was only correlation and NOT causation, why would that invalidate your claim?

Astrology only needs to be correlative for it to have some benefit to those who can intuitively read the sky.

The rising of the star Sirius in the constellation of Aquarius correlates to the rising of the Nile river. It does not cause the Nile river to flood, both are apart of some other shared cycle in nature that relate without directly causing.

Additionally, Vedic views when astrology was discovered believed all phenomenon was “caused” by the mind itself, so they too never believed in the cause created by some distant object.

That astrological systems from the past, acting like a system of psychology, could easily observe that certain personality types were born in certain parts of the season, while others later. These are all qualities which could give astrology some weight as a psychological system that reads cycles which correspond to bigger cycles, without any of them needing to be causal at all.

So why would the stars need to be causal?