I've been learning the age-old Western system for a while, and it makes more sense to me than any other I had looked at or studied before. I love it! It's beautiful, spiritual and dead-on precise - quite a combo. Hard work, though! And not all pretty, with its use of malefics, detriments and falls, and ill-aspects. But it's made sense of a lot of things that modern astrology had been unable to explain to me - including through consulting some very experienced astrologers.
Anyone else into classical astrology?
Yes, there are a couple of us here who keep to the classical view. No outer planets and keep the psychobabble to the minimum. :)
There is a growing volume of literature which is available.
There are, of course, the classic texts themselves but these can tend to be a little hard going because of the rather stilted language (from our perspective) and the fact that they assume you are familiar with the technospeak of the day, so much that needs explaining isn't.
Try some modern writers on the classical approach. Books by Rob Hand, Lee Lehman and Deb Houlding (who also has a great website http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ are good starts but there are plenty of others.
Enjoy learning more and any questions, just ask.
Yes, there are a couple of us here who keep to the classical view. No outer planets and keep the psychobabble to the minimum. :)That was major attraction to me - the lack of psychobabble and touchy-feely interpretations! Another is that it is a form of astrology that encapsulates the cosmos as a divine, sacred place (however one defines "divine", of course!); and as a place where both fate and free will have a role to play in the events and characters of all beings and forces within that cosmos. Somehow, that approach seems more relevant to the quantum age.
There are, of course, the classic texts themselves but these can tend to be a little hard going because of the rather stilted language (from our perspective) and the fact that they assume you are familiar with the technospeak of the day, so much that needs explaining isn't.I have to admit some of the older texts can be dry - even incomprehensible to the neophyte I am; others, however, are entertaining and/or very inspiring. Lilly is very readable, and decrypting my own chart through his eyes has been...interesting (insert wry, amused and somewhat alarmed smilie!). Ibn Ezra - through the translations I've found - gives us a mix of the practical and the poetic I find appealing. But it really helps to have a few moderns masters to steer me! I love Skyscript and Lee Lehman, and have been listening to a couple of Rob Hand's lectures online. I've also read the (in)famous John Frawley, who first got me interested in Classical astrology, though by nature I am less fundamentalist than he is (his book, The Real Astrology, I found in turn informative, funny and irritating - and all in all, unforgettable. He also has a wonderful reading list suggestion on his website! - reminds me of my happy days as a history student, when "modern history" started at the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West :D).
Enjoy learning more and any questions, just ask.Thanks! So far, I've found that questions are generally answered with each new day of study, and I still feel rather shy at asking what must be so basic to some. But I will no doubt overcome that and start asking on forums :D