31
Johannes,

I thought your next reply would actually provide evidence for this claim
I'm off now, but tomorrow I should like to give a quotation concerning the possibiltiy of applications to or separations from antiscia in the teachings of Lilly, an example.


...as well as for taking the same stance on signs/planets/houses as Clinton :D

So let's not deviate from the topic and let's stick to astrology, shall we?



Cheers,
Goran

32
hi guys

I am not getting a yes here at all!

I just do not like Moon/Mars rejection going on. Plus take a look at Venus/mars conjunction. I am thinking that Venus is the competition (a woman).

The rest ... you guys brought all of it up.

I hope I am wrong

Cheers
CD

33
Did I truly sat this?


I mean is Lilly not logical, or why does the direction of North fit both Cancer and the Fourth house descriptions of CA?

Would I state this and why?

Shouldn't it be reversed if Cancer has no correlation, no corespondence with the fourth?

As far as Father, both the sign and house relate to parentage do they not?

The 10th or Capricorn relate to Career, social status, standing in the community. But Cancer and the fourth are defintely home related from both fourth house and Cancer desriptions that I see by Lilly's words. *

Now my precious Forum, and some of you suspect I'm lying, that I like others you know, they curb the truth, and have little to do with it!

No one around these parts is aware of anyone like that! ROTFL

Now Goran, Corpus Scorpii, and our beloved Mark, has taken the Defence advocate of Ultra-Trads, or rather the prosecution of Modernism, in regards to this Grey Matter, this to the foes of Traditionalism, is heresy, total blasphemous, that Lilly the icon and mentor of Traditionalism would dare stand on the fence, and give evidence of anything Anti-Traditionalist!

But Why,...Did he say WHY?

Why does our beloved astro brother, our mentor and Icon even bother with twising our minds and souls with things as mentioned prior in this dispute that has caused so much tension in Trads vs. Mods?

I mean let's think about the 9th house, is it religion, philosphy, higher education, librarys, the clergy, the Phd.s in universitys, the priests of present and bygone times, the publishers of propaganda where actually true of maliciously mal-content?

Why did Lilly even bother giving hints to this problematic quagmire that cause such division in our faith of true astrological truth?

Was Lilly a Sol of the Bull that Zeus demonstrated who came to the Earth to take his virtuous human bride a fraud?

Is his Piscean asc. a mere weak minded counterfiet that curbs and seduces the weak minded to his conspiracty?

Or was Lilly stating some truth that we All have dufficulty with?

Goran, Knight of the Ulta-Trad realm, one that is so passionate about that he believes, that wenches many times get weak in the knees, in your presence, one salutes you for your zeal of taking the prosecution of the fraudulent conspiracy of Lilly stating 'heredical tendacy' that his words are implying what has been misunderstood by Modernes!

But this is a grey area, a swamp, a quagmire that has trapped so many mere mortal minded, that possibly has plagued astrology since he wrote the words.

Who did he get this from as you rightfully say, who did he find this in, or did he make it up as a Moderne often has?

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know

34
Clinton Soule wrote: I mean is Lilly not logical, or why does the direction of North fit both Cancer and the Fourth house descriptions of CA?
...
Shouldn't it be reversed if Cancer has no correlation, no corespondence with the fourth?
You are repeating the same arguments and I am starting to wonder if you are reading the replies that have been made to you. You state here for example an implication that it was made that cancer has no correlation with the fourth. This in direct contradiction to where, for example, I have explicitly recognised a correlation in some symbolism between the sign and the house and I explicitly mention this is in relation to location primarily. So who is saying that there is no correlation? Is anyone? If not this is just a straw man argument built up to be torn down, when you could just stick to trying to tear down the actual arguments that have been made instead.

It is your statement that the fourth house is the natural home of the moon that people are chiefly disagreeing with.

Also you state a rather illogical thing, that if there was no correlation between sign and house that "it should be reversed" - but having no correlation means just that, that there's no correlation. So it shouldnt' be reversed or put in any other order because all those things would make for a correlation. Remember it is you, and not others, who is attesting that the planet links to the house.
Now my precious Forum, and some of you suspect I'm lying, that I like others you know, they curb the truth, and have little to do with it!
Clinton who suspects you are lying? I read it that some, myself included, suspect you are mistaken.
Now Goran, Corpus Scorpii, and our beloved Mark, has taken the Defence advocate of Ultra-Trads, or rather the prosecution of Modernism, in regards to this Grey Matter, this to the foes of Traditionalism, is heresy, total blasphemous, that Lilly the icon and mentor of Traditionalism would dare stand on the fence, and give evidence of anything Anti-Traditionalist!
I don't recall Mark posting on this thread anywhere, so let's keep Mark out of it. I also do not appreciate the implication that this has something to do with some tribal modern versus traditional thinking. I can only speak for myself, but as I am one of your chief detractors (along with Goran) this implies it is directed at me as well. For the record I do not take very kindly to being told what I think nor the implication that myself or Goran are prosecuting modernism. I can only speak for myself but this is not the case and the allegation that because you are being disagreed with, that the reason must be part of some wider tribal affiliation to a 'brand' of astrology and the prosecution of others is deeply unfair.

I cannot help but ask myself why you are bringing this up, when you could more easily just read what counter arguments have been made to you and directly contradict them one by one. The simplest way to do this is to just find a quote where someone refers to the planets as having natural homes in the houses. The debate will be over then. However, I am confident that you will not be able to do this, because such things were never stated in the tradition. Nobody (else) is making this about modern versus traditional astrology, simply disagreeing with a point you made regarding the tradition.

I appreciate we all are passionate about our astrology but let's not make this into something which it is not.
Goran, Knight of the Ulta-Trad realm, one that is so passionate about that he believes, that wenches many times get weak in the knees, in your presence, one salutes you for your zeal of taking the prosecution of the fraudulent conspiracy of Lilly stating 'heredical tendacy' that his words are implying what has been misunderstood by Modernes!
Clinton

Please make your points regarding the natural home theory without directing comments such as these to any forum members. First you imply Goran has his head in the earth and now you have denoted him as a knight prosecuting others. If this posting style continues I will remove any further posts not directly answering hanalola's question. Please refrain from targetting particular forum members in the way that you have. We are all here to post about astrology, not to have our characters twisted.

35
Please read this carefully, Clinton/Johannes - I hope it helps you see the picture in its entirety 8)

Although some characteristics of the signs are drawn directly from such things as the shape of the zodiacal animal(such as Leo indicating wild beasts) or from the position of the movable ("cardinal") sign when Aries rises (such as Capricorn being a southern sign), the signs are primarily background conditions and structures for the planets in them and the houses they occupy.

Sometimes this means the sign will indicate a physical place, which is useful in horary and mundane astrology;sometimes it refers to the overall style of energy in light of which the houses and planets operate, which is useful in every branch. Here's what I'd say are the four major traditional ways of approaching the signs:

1. They act as places of dignity for certain planets

2. They indicate elemental qualities (triplicities) and styles of those energies (the quadruplicities). These can be translated into psychological characteristics in certain situations.

3. They have specialized indications that are often only relevant for specific circumstances: being four-footed, being royal, fully voiced, "prolific" or having many children, being northern, and so on.

4. How they rise ad set provides a structure for certain predictive techniques, such as ascensional times and primary directions.
(Dr. Benjamin Dykes,Traditional Astrology for Today, p. 42/43)

Now I'd like you to provide a single example of Lilly actually using the principle of a planet having its "natural corresponding house"(being equivalent to the sign it rules!) in his horary judgment - "for every single member of this forum to see"! :D

Goran :wink:

36
CosmicDolphin stated:
hi guys

I am not getting a yes here at all!

I just do not like Moon/Mars rejection going on. Plus take a look at Venus/mars conjunction. I am thinking that Venus is the competition (a woman).
The website below has the chart at size 75%. If no one tries to re-calculate a horoscope or tries to enlarge it it tends to stay indefinitely! One major advantage to this website is the easy acess to the ephemeris and the 'Additional Tables' (PDF) where you may view the speeds of the planets at that time.

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?lang ... r=1&nho2=1

CD, yes I saw that Sol was going to cjt Mars(lord of the 10th), and that Mars(lucifer) was Essentially Exalted.

However the Combustion of Mars, as the Sun's speed is 59' 19" and Mars has a speed that day of 49' 6". The conjunction is generally a positive answer.

Having Not yet analyzed the chart using Lilly's point system, nor have I deciphered Terms, Face, etc., but the Combust tells me loudly as Lilly says '...the combustion of a planet is about the worst that can happen to a planet...'

As noted in this thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=716

So without doing the entire analysis, even as you say CD, that you are getting a Yes answer, I think the querant will not be happy there if it did come through, getting the job. Or it will terminate shortly for the querant for the combustion shows the matter is burnt up, beyond roasted, it has been in the Barbeque of life too long, and that leads me to believe this is Not a happy situation.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know

37
Paul stated:
You state here for example an implication that it was made that cancer has no correlation with the fourth. This in direct contradiction to where, for example, I have explicitly recognised a correlation in some symbolism between the sign and the house and I explicitly mention this is in relation to location primarily. So who is saying that there is no correlation?
Then if there are other correlations or corresponding data in CA to this it May Be more along the lines of Hypothesis rather than just a theory as Goran has recently mentioned. As many through the centuries may have misunderstood these fragments of sentences, or small amounts of data and quite possibly that is where the Moderne concept of planets relating to houses may have developed.

Paul said:
Clinton who suspects you are lying? I read it that some, myself included, suspect you are mistaken.
Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by *Lying*. The Protestant revolutionary, Martin Luther, an Aries Sun, believed very strongly like those from the early Church that Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler were teaching Heresy(Heliocentricism), creating blasphemous distortions of that they thought to be truth based upon scriptures about Joshua 'commanding the sun to stand still at the battle of Jericho' recorded for a more primative man and by them within the Old Testament.

Now I'm not quoting any scriptures here, just stating for those to understand where this distortion began from NASA reports:

http://www.sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/

This website questions the above NASA document as it may be a distorted:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/joshuaday.htm

The Point I'm trying to make is that were Luther and many Church leaders lying to themselves about maintaining the Geocentric theory rather than opening their eyes, pulling their ostrich-like heads out of the sand, of believing everything in sacred held documents is truth, word for word?

Same with myself astro brother Paul, either I'm Lying, or telling some truth, or what I understand is the truth!
I don't recall Mark posting on this thread anywhere, so let's keep Mark out of it. I also do not appreciate the implication that this has something to do with some tribal modern versus traditional thinking. I can only speak for myself, but as I am one of your chief detractors (along with Goran) this implies it is directed at me as well. For the record I do not take very kindly to being told what I think nor the implication that myself or Goran are prosecuting modernism. I can only speak for myself but this is not the case and the allegation that because you are being disagreed with, that the reason must be part of some wider tribal affiliation to a 'brand' of astrology and the prosecution of others is deeply unfair.
Thanks Paul, I had meant Paul instead of Mark...don't know why I said his name...and let's Not make any of this personal or get caught in sensitivity issues, I'm not picking on anyone. * This is a good thread because for hundreds of years many may have misunderstandings upon this as well*.

When there is a debate, typically one side plays the Defense and the other the Offense or Prosecution. It's like within the American court system when the trial is over both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorneys may have dinner together, even visit one another at their respective residence. In other words all of this is only oppinions, and the concept that Paul and Goran are addressing is simply 'That there is No relationship between signs and houses or planets having Natural rulership of houses according to Traditionalism verses that Clinton says that my understanding may have been where Modernes came up with this concept!'

Brothers of the Creator's astrology craft, just know this is a good debate and what I stated about Goran being a knight was only meant as praise, I did Not think about some Europeons may resent being put in labels like monarchys and knights! Respectfully I praised him, for we need more gallant and truth seeking personalitys to uphold Traditionalism, putting a little fire under the water in order to boil out the impuritys.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise Men truly know how little they know

38
Thank you for the change in approach Clinton. For what it is worth I don't think anyone has anything other than respect for you as well. This is just an issue, like many that people can sometimes have, where we take contrary views.
Same with myself astro brother Paul, either I'm Lying, or telling some truth, or what I understand is the truth!
I guess see this in a less binary light than you perhaps. I would see it that you are not lying, as this implies deliberately misinforming, but rather that you believe what you say, however others disagree with you. That they disagree does not imply they think you are lying, just that you are incorrect (in their opinion). Similarly when you take a different view I would expect that you do not think I am lying, just that I am incorrect in my view.

The astrological alphabet concept can be traced to the late nineteenth early twentieth astrologers. It does not exist prior to this, especially the idea of a natural house for the planets.

Now with regards the modern vs traditional idea, that's not something which interests me, instead I see this purely as an exercise in tracing our historical roots. I have no particular affiliation with hero worshipping any astrologers or any 'old tomes' or any big names. Instead I recognise that they are preservers of our tradition which allow us to peer backwards through time to help understand how, as astrologers, our understanding of the mechanics and the art of astrology has changed - and from this insight we may learn something that can be applicable today.

I have no sense of tribal affiliation with any particular brand of astrology and the kind of natal astrology I do is a bit of a mish-mash of some modern techniques with some traditional ones. I'm of the opinion that everyone is just an astrologer, first and foremost, and they all use what they think works.

However in this 'debate' what's being discussed is more of a matter of a historical timeline. It is purely that I do not believe that this natural house idea exists prior to a certain time period, and so I do not think we can contend that traditionally astrologers used this idea of a natural house at all. If they were to, it would be much more along the lines of the joys of the houses - here I think there is a much clearer case to be made for the idea of planets having a natural home in certain houses. But with regards the assignation of domicile rulers to the house of the same number, that does not appear, in my view, to be a part of the tradition. There is nothing wrong with this, I'm not value judging it, simply taking it to be an historical truth.

As I say, I'm willing to be convinced, but I joined this discussion not with particular opinions of my own, but rather because this is, historically, what appears to be the case, for whatever reason that is.

If other people want to use this natural house idea, then I have no particular problem with it, provided they are aware it is not how it was done historically. So it's more a matter of clarity than anything.

39
Paul wrote:Lilly says instead that the fourth is co-signified by Cancer, this is not the same. In fact these quotes provided here in favour of trying to assert some natural house rulership of the Moon to the fourth house seems, to me, to be largely intellectually dishonest as it is only by omission that this implication might be seen. Let's look at what Lilly says of the fourth house and we will see that it shares much more symbolism with Saturn than with the Moon.

So Johannes quote above seems a bit suspect as it deliberately removes the concluding part of the quote, namely not just is its cosignificator Cancer, but also the Sun. By omitting this we might imply that there is some connection with the Moon and the fourth, but we see clearly here that there is not. In fact Saturn and the Sun are mentioned explicitly as being connected here.
Hello Paul,

your imputations are a bit divious me having quoted the whole text Lilly gives as to the fourth house before (see the quotation below and its original).

Johannes
___________________________________________________________
posted Thu Apr 4, 2013 9:03 pm
johannes susato wrote:the 4th houses "Cosignificator is Cancer" !!!

See your quotation of Lilly, CA, pages 52-53, from website:
http://mithras93.tripod.com/books/books.html
"The Fourth House.

Giveth Judgment of Fathers in generall & ever of his Father that enquires, or that is born; of Lands, Houses, Tenements, Inheritances, Tillage of the earth, Treasures hidden, the determination or end of any thing; Towns, Cities or Castles, besieged or not besieged; all ancient Dwellings, Gardens, Fields, Pastures, Orchards; the quality and nature of the grounds one purchaseth, whether Vineyards, Cornfielfd, &c. whether the ground be Woody, Stony or barren.

The Sign of the fourth denoteth the Town, the Lord thereof, the Governour: It ruleth the Brest, Lungs.

Of Colours, the Red: It?s Cosignificator is Cancer, and of Planets the Sun; we call it the Angle of the Earth, or Imum Coeli; it is feminine, and the North Angle: In Nativities or Questions, this fourth house represents Fathers, so doth the Sun by day and Saturn by night; yet if the Sun be herein placed, he is not ill, but rather shews the Father to be of a noble disposition, &c.
Johannes

40
johannes susato wrote:your imputations are a bit divious me having quoted the whole text Lilly gives as to the fourth house before (see the quotation below and its original).
Right, so you know that the concluding part of that sentence is that the planets associated are the Sun and Saturn.

What I felt was suspect is in answering and highlighting Cancer in answer to Goran who asked "Johannes, Clinton, please give me a quote of Cancer rulerships from Lilly which would be equivalent to the rulerships of the 4th house and the Moon. "
- emphasis mine

By deliberately removing the Sun from the picture, it changes the meaning of what we're examining when Goran specifically asked for the Moon's relationship to the fourth. This is what I meant.

It seems suspect to me to do that when obviously the quote, in its entirety, does not make that implication - unless you believe that including the Sun (and Saturn with fathers etc) still implies the Moon, in which case why remove it?

The point my post was trying to make was that whilst we can take snippets out of these quotes to try to justify the idea that the Moon relates to the fourth, when we take it as a whole it does not imply this.

41
Paul wrote:
johannes susato wrote:your imputations are a bit divious me having quoted the whole text Lilly gives as to the fourth house before (see the quotation below and its original).
Right, so you know that the concluding part of that sentence is that the planets associated are the Sun and Saturn.

What I felt was suspect is in answering and highlighting Cancer in answer to Goran who asked "Johannes, Clinton, please give me a quote of Cancer rulerships from Lilly which would be equivalent to the rulerships of the 4th house and the Moon. "
- emphasis mine

By deliberately removing the Sun from the picture, it changes the meaning of what we're examining when Goran specifically asked for the Moon's relationship to the fourth. This is what I meant.

It seems suspect to me to do that when obviously the quote, in its entirety, does not make that implication - unless you believe that including the Sun (and Saturn with fathers etc) still implies the Moon, in which case why remove it?

The point my post was trying to make was that whilst we can take snippets out of these quotes to try to justify the idea that the Moon relates to the fourth, when we take it as a whole it does not imply this.
If you read my text above it should be very clear, that in my first post there was the full text given, in its entirety, nothing removed, no snippets taken out. See the date above the quotation of my text, please.
It is these imputations which I refuse.

42
johannes susato wrote:
Clinton Soule wrote:Of course there are ostriches that put their head in the sand!
Clinton Soule wrote:And you ought to know I love each and everyone of you as astro siblings regardless of our various oppinions!


See the little difference in discussion style above and below . . .
cor scorpii wrote:No, Clinton(how can you know what others believe???) because the point of view you're trying to defend so desperately is grounded upon your stubbornness and nothing else...it is the beginner knowledge one gains right at the start when learning trad. astrology, not something one argues over despite all the plain/overwhelming evidence to the contrary - even in the source you constantly quote to support your position! So you can "stand on it" all you want, that doesn't make your opinion right - on the contrary...you only make yourself pretty ridiculous - sorry! :lol:

For what purpose do you make this change in style of discussion in this thread now, Goran?
Or is this by accident and regrettably?

Johannes
cor scorpii wrote:I thought your next reply would actually provide evidence for this claim Quote:
I'm off now, but tomorrow I should like to give a quotation concerning the possibiltiy of applications to or separations from antiscia in the teachings of Lilly, an example.


...as well as for taking the same stance on signs/planets/houses as Clinton

So let's not deviate from the topic and let's stick to astrology, shall we?



Cheers,
Goran
. . . of course we should "stick to astrology" and we shall do so. But I think you will agree, that it was you who chose to "deviate from the topic" a little. So to remind me not to deviate from the topic is nice of you but off the way, because it was you deviating.
And the kind you did was not O.K. at all.

Cheers,
Johannes
Last edited by johannes susato on Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.