View Full Version : Horary and Tarot
Hi! Not sure if this has been discussed here or not, I did a search but didnít come up with anything.
Iím curious if Iím the only one that feels this way.
I have been studying horary for about 8 months, trying my very hardest mind you, but I find this form of predictive astrology to be a bit complicated because of all the rules. The chart is not operable if the moon is VOC, or via combusta, if the ascendant is too late or too early, and lets not forget Saturn in H7 forewarning a possible misinterpretation, and not being allowed to ask the same question twice. I have also found that you canít use the same time of day to ask questions because the charts are too similar. It seems like you almost have to plan for the perfect time to ask the perfect question (considerations before judgment). There is no such thing as a quick question either. I find it so much easier to pull a couple of cards and not have to worry about whether or not the reading can be interpreted. I understand not everyone can read tarot cards, but I honestly donít believe that any chart can be deemed inoperable. Donít crucify me for saying this, but is it possible that William Lillyís experiences are his own, and maybe otherís experiences may not be the same as his? I mean we all have a certain style when we read tarot, why not with horary, we are all different so how could we possibly read the same? Horary gives and unbelievable amount of information from start to finish without having to draw another chart to elaborate, like we do with the cards, they are certainly different and both highly accurate, and the combination of the two is truly amazing, no to mention down right exhausting!
I often find myself trying to read charts by connecting the ďdotsĒ intuitivley, which apparently is a big no no, but I canít help it, and in the end I pick up my deck and lay out a spread.
Any thoughts on this?
Long, long ago and far, far away . . . astrologers of those times had a lot going against them. A lack of accurate ephemerides for past years, making it difficult to cast birth charts. A lack of good clocks and time-pieces making it awkward to certify birth times. A set of classical planets -- five in all, plus the two "lights" -- not a lot of astrological bodies to make up a set of rich meanings. Not very good mathematical tools and tables to use in setting up charts and houses.
So, they invented rulerships, day and night meanings, Arabian Parts, the use of Fixed Starts (even though they couldn't accurately account for declination and the time of rising, setting, culmination and the effective conjunction with a planet), and all kinds of rules like VOC -- most of which was gleaned from other, earlier astrologers having even less capabilities and educational resources.
If I were to use Hoary Astrology, which I don't, I would certainly not use the words of Lilly or others of that time but I might consider following the works of the more modern writers. In my case, I use other methodologies for predictive work. But only you can make your choices for your purposes. Dave
I am somewhat familiar with the techniques of modern hororists, but it still seems so limited. I have noticed certian patterns in charts that seem to go against the rules, yet it's accurate and important information.
I don't know what sort of modern Horary books you've been looking at, but I don't know of any Horary Astrologer, traditional or modern, who doesn't refer to Lilly.
I would also like to defend poor old 'traditional' astrology. Modern astrology has alway struck me as completely lost. It's been so polluted by first Theosophy, then Jungian psycho-babble, then by 'feel-good' New Ageism, but worst of all by those who try to qualify astrology by scientific means. Science can't even decide what a planet is.
To our ancestors the planets were simply the heavenly bodies that had motion. The sun, moon and the five stars that moved through the field of fixed stars. These lights were given symbolic characteristic based on their brillance and how they moved through the sky.
The star we call Venus was named after the goddess of love and pleasure due to its beautiful brillance, and was thought to symbolize things beautiful and pleasureable. No one thought Venus was sending down beams of Venusian energies which effect our love life, that sort of nonsense would have to wait until "modern" astrology was born. Venus was a symbol, an indicator of how those energies she shared were behaving in the cosmos. By observing Venus, we could make the assumption that those energies would be behaving the same everywhere. This is what astrologers use to call sympathy. Venus wasn't effecting anything. It was just a way to watch how those energies were operating in the cosmos at a given time. If Venus is well aspected, we can expect fortunate results in love. If Venus is poorly aspected, we can expect bad results in love.
Traditional astrology has a consistent and coherent philosophical framework supporting it! Even more than technique, worldview matters. If your worldview accepts that the whole Cosmos is one great unified being bound together by sympathy and harmony, then you can predict the future and do magic.
The best way to judge is by results. Consult a few professional astrologers. I've found the tradition guys are much more consistant.
I often use Horary methods to interpret Tarot Astrological Spreads. It is a bit easier and quicker than doing a proper Horary chart, and brings a lot of astrology's depth to Tarot.
I would suggest that the works of the German Hamburg school, particularly Witte and the Ebertins, are fantastic examples of modern astrology. With some 180 years of research between them, they developed a well-proven, fundamental foundation of planetary relationships that is recognized and used the world over by every professional and serious student of astrology. The use of mid-points, first practiced in the 1500s in Italy, was picked up and developed into an amazing tool by Witte and the two Ebertins (father and son).
The work of the French researchers, the Gauquins (spelling?), is another example of basic and extensive research that has had an impact or modern astrology. There are, and have been, many schools of thought promoting all kinds of ideas in the past century -- that is a fact of the modern age of easy communication and half-thoughts. We have to put up with it and screen it out just like we do with advertisements and political statements. Thats not to say there isn't anything good happening.
Now, go to some modern writers like Charles Harvey and Nick Campion of the UK and their work on Mundane Astrology and Harmonics. Read Noel Tyl's works and tell me they aren't highly accomplished and accurate astrologers. See what Rob Hand has done along with all the research done by the NCGR chapters and their research teams. There is so much impressive modern stuff being developed that we tend to forget Dane Rudyhar, Mark Robertson, Katheryn De Jersey, Lynn Bell and others. Then there is the work of Cyril Fagan, Don Bradely, Eshelman and others who developed the astounding Sidereal School with their accurate timing and precise mathematical work. The list could go on quite a bit further.
If we look at the fantastical writings of past centuries thru the middle ages we find all kinds of inaccurate, unfounded and self-promoting junk being pushed so that the author could be seen as "important" and hence make more money. There were some gems of astrologers. BUT MY POINT WAS that there was much less in resources -- ephemerides, accurate clocks, recorded birth times, the number of planets, the use of all kinds of rules and substitute components to flesh out the chart and give the astrologer wiggle-room. I don't think highly of much old astrology that I have reviewed. Dave
Thanks for the info. It can give people exploring astrology several places to begin. (I think John Frawley, Robert Zoller, and Lee Lehman should be mentioned for those looking into traditional astrology).
I am familiar with most of the people you've mentioned. Alas, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
The problem is you and I view astrology as two very different things. I don't think astrology is a quantitative science. Words like 'accuracy' and 'research' don't apply much to how I understand astrology to work. It is a symbolic language.
Yes. The sidereal zodiac is a more scientifically correct reflection of the heavens. But while the coincidence of astrological and astronomical 'first point of Aries' might seem a like a good reason for adopting the sidereal zodiac, the connection between this zodiac and astronomical reality stops right there. The astronomical constellations are not neat divisions of the zodiac into twelve equal, thirty-degree sections, as are both of the astrological zodiacs: the only difference between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs is where these twelve neat equal sections are held to start. Both can work or not work depending on how they are used.
Modern 'wonders' like logarithms are certainly accurate, but so what. Astrologers were making correct judgments for hundreds of years without them. (The court astrologers' head usually depended on it.)
Precise positioning is useful for blowing up targets, but in astrology an approximate positioning for the planets will give you the exact same result 98% of the time. The same goes for cusp placement.
Accuracy and scientific research will never be able to logically explain why Jupiter is benefic and Mars is malefic, or how the position of a hunk of volcanic rock enveloped in sulfuric clouds in outer space can possibly effect my sex life.
Modern astrologers can try all they wants to force 'scientific' rigor on to astrology, but it is like putting oranges in the apple basket, and thinking you have more apples.
Until, one 'gets' the world view and symbolic nature of astrology you'll be 'missing the forest for the trees', and getting mediocre results, just like Rob Hand. (Granted he is one of the better astrologers using modern methods.)
Anyway, that's my two cents. Dave, you seem like a guy who knows where he's going, and I don't think I am going to be conviencing you of anything. We are just on different paths I reckon. I wish you well on yours.
True, the paths that you view each of us to be on are different. But, I believe you aren't really aware of my path. For the record, note that I . . .
** don't use signs (Tropical or Sidereal) for any chart work except for natal and mundane charts.
** only note planets in my charts to the nearest degree.
** interpret charts often using just phase relationships (within a 45 degree segment). See my astro-tarot readings here in the Astrology forum for examples or many of the Planet Series threads concerning pairs of planets.
** use specialized forms of Solar Returns (precession corrected Tropical) that only use angular planets and don't use signs or degrees at all.
** have interpreted charts very accurately (here on AT with Minderwiz long ago) without any signs and degrees and houses being used, using the "containment" methodology.
I am probably the most minimalist astrologer you could run into. When I talked of research I was not referring much to math, numbers or statistics -- but more to interpretive research of great numbers of charts relative to the planets and astrological factors. Other than a personal insistence on using correct math and understanding the underlying astronomical basis of the globe, the solar system, cycles, etc., I don't engage in statistical research or care for it. But, I do admire those who have developed a tool kit of personal methods that work well together and permit them to help others with accuracy of insight and helpful advice. I also demand of myself that the methods that I use always work -- if a practice doesn't work virtually 100%, then I don't use it. That's why I am a minimalist, I guess. I've found that a lot of astrology stuff only works 20% to 70% of the time -- not good enough for professional practice. Dave
You shouldn't have mentioned 'minimalism'. We Japanese are big fans of minimalism. You have me intrigued. What types of astrological services do you offer? What's your price? Feel free to PM me if you feel it is more appropriate.
Traditional astrology vs. modern astrolgy, I have seen this disagreement many times, and am always at a loss for words! I am not nearly as advanced with astrology as you guys are, only been studying for a little over a year, so I am way out of my league on this subject. I can understand both sides...what can I say, that's the Libra in me!
Quote:The problem is you and I view astrology as two very different things. I don't think astrology is a quantitative science. Words like 'accuracy' and 'research' don't apply much to how I understand astrology to work. It is a symbolic language.
I totally agree with this. Sometimes I feel like I am getting lost in it all. Like you, I have a different understanding of astrology, only I don't know what it is yet, but now you have me thinking more about the symbolism...love it! God bless traditional astrologers, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be where we are today.
We know so much more now than they did back in the day, it's hard for me not to consider modern techniques.
I really want to learn more about midpoints, harmonics, fixed stars and asteroids....so much to learn so little time to learn it!
I have a book that is in the final stage of editing. It will be about 80 pages (that is short for a book, but then a minimal amount of good explanation doesn't require more) in e-book form. Another couple of weeks. I'll let you have an advance-of-release copy if you remind me in a few weeks.
The book will show a simple and direct way to do predictive work using a form of Solar Returns. It is very different than conventional practices. As far as my other practices, examples of them are everywhere in the Planet Series posts that I've done here on AT. Dave