Lily and authority

1
Good day

It is very important to approach Lilly, and all the old astrological authorities, with a good deal of scepticism. It's common to regard them as if they were writing textbooks in the modern understanding of the word. But they were not. There were many reasons for these people writing, and the desire to impart sound knowledge was not usually high on the list
What Lilly says about choice of a place to move or choice of job,anything to is groundless. Like much of what is in the books, it is fairground astrology: something to give the astrologer some plausible-sounding phrases to mutter before telling the client exactly what the client wants to hear.

Re: Lily and authority

2
Ivanastrolog wrote:Good day

It is very important to approach Lilly, and all the old authorities, with a good deal of scepticism. It's common to regard them as if they were writing textbooks in the modern understanding of the word. But they were not. There were many reasons for these people writing, and the desire to impart sound knowledge was not usually high on the list
What Lilly says about choice of a place to move or choice of job,anything to is groundless. Like much of what is in the books, it is fairground astrology: something to give the astrologer some plausible-sounding phrases to mutter before telling the client exactly what the client wants to hear.
Great words of someone, who scarcely can spell the astrological ABC of Horay, Ivan.
Forgive me, when my understanding of your questions as yet is too truncated.

Re: Lily and authority

3
johannes susato wrote:
Ivanastrolog wrote:Good day

It is very important to approach Lilly, and all the old authorities, with a good deal of scepticism. It's common to regard them as if they were writing textbooks in the modern understanding of the word. But they were not. There were many reasons for these people writing, and the desire to impart sound knowledge was not usually high on the list
What Lilly says about choice of a place to move or choice of job,anything to is groundless. Like much of what is in the books, it is fairground astrology: something to give the astrologer some plausible-sounding phrases to mutter before telling the client exactly what the client wants to hear.
Great words of someone, who scarcely can spell the astrological ABC of Horay, Ivan.
Forgive me, when my understanding of your questions as yet is too truncated.
Not entirely mine,but from John Frawley`s website.He knows the A.B,C
In fact what he said applies to most Astrology authors-imparting knowledge is not high on the list
Last edited by Ivanastrolog on Sun Oct 05, 2014 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

4
Ivan

If you are quoting other people's words you should always make that clear, and give a source for the quote - or a link where it can be read in context.

6
Well could you do it now please, so we can understand which of the above comments are your own, and which are John Frawley's (and if they are his, where those comments were published)?

Thanks

7
John Frawley, The Horay Textbook, p. 4:

"The great master of astrology is William Lilly, an English astrologer who lived from 1602 to 1681. His Christian Astrology, [first] published in 1647, is, and will remain, the standard textbook. The book you have in your hands leans heavily on it."

8
johannes susato wrote:John Frawley, The Horay Textbook, p. 4:

"The great master of astrology is William Lilly, an English astrologer who lived from 1602 to 1681. His Christian Astrology, [first] published in 1647, is, and will remain, the standard textbook. The book you have in your hands leans heavily on it."
bingo.
Deb it was a private exchange I had with him months ago after reading articles on his site.
I had asked him a question on travel

9
John Frawley, The Horary Textbook, p.222:

"Lilly says that an aspect to the Sun will work instead of one to Lord 10, but this is on the assumption that the querent is seeking a royal appointment."

So far Frawley's crushing critique versus Lilly concerning jobs.

10
Ivanastrolog wrote:Good day

It is very important to approach Lilly, and all the old astrological authorities, with a good deal of scepticism. It's common to regard them as if they were writing textbooks in the modern understanding of the word. But they were not. There were many reasons for these people writing, and the desire to impart sound knowledge was not usually high on the list
What Lilly says about choice of a place to move or choice of job,anything to is groundless. Like much of what is in the books, it is fairground astrology: something to give the astrologer some plausible-sounding phrases to mutter before telling the client exactly what the client wants to hear.
Hi Ivanastrolog

I've noticed you've posted a few topics within a very short space of time - it may be good to analyse these questions one at a time.

However I don't actually notice any question here. In fact there is nothing being asked about here - your post here consists of just several statements, some of which, we now know, are not even your own but just paraphrasing someone else. I can't help but wonder to myself what the purpose is, keeping in mind this forum is not a personal blog. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you are making what can be perceived as controversial posts for no other reason than to court some kind of controversy to see if any feathers will be ruffled. I hope this isn't true and I am getting the wrong end of the stick here.

Let's deal with the content of the post though. You say we ought to be skeptical of authorities like Lilly. I think it's good advice to be always cautious and test for one's self the validity of any of these things. However, judging by your previous questions (on other topics) such as what constitutes a late degree ascendant (something Lilly covers) I am assuming that you are making these critiques of authors like Lilly without actually having read or studied his work in much depth. Is that a fair assessment? Can you be clear as to whether you have read and studied Lilly's work and indeed the work of other "old astrological authorities"?

With that in mind before questioning the statements made by Lilly and others, I think it's probably worth first going away and studying those statements for yourself, and apply the same logic to all other authorities, such as Frawley and whoever else, that you demand of Lilly here - namely to be skeptical of all claims. I'd add that it could be tasteless to quote someone from a private message and to state what someone else's thought are without referencing that author - we should always assume private comments made to you are meant to be kept private. At the same time you should also be aware that you may accidentally misunderstand or misrepresent someone's overall opinion when we read just one person's thoughts at one particular time. I cannot imagine that Frawley's view of Lilly is to compare it with, for example, fairground astrology.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

11
Paul
I`ve studied a lot of ancient authors yes. Frawley`s comments seem logical to me that`s all. But since a lot of people seem to take ancient authors for granted I was looking for an objective comment on Lily,based on personal experience

12
Paul wrote:
Ivanastrolog wrote:Good day

It is very important to approach Lilly, and all the old astrological authorities, with a good deal of scepticism. It's common to regard them as if they were writing textbooks in the modern understanding of the word. But they were not. There were many reasons for these people writing, and the desire to impart sound knowledge was not usually high on the list
What Lilly says about choice of a place to move or choice of job,anything to is groundless. Like much of what is in the books, it is fairground astrology: something to give the astrologer some plausible-sounding phrases to mutter before telling the client exactly what the client wants to hear.
Hi Ivanastrolog

I've noticed you've posted a few topics within a very short space of time - it may be good to analyse these questions one at a time.

However I don't actually notice any question here. In fact there is nothing being asked about here - your post here consists of just several statements, some of which, we now know, are not even your own but just paraphrasing someone else. I can't help but wonder to myself what the purpose is, keeping in mind this forum is not a personal blog. The only conclusion I can come up with is that you are making what can be perceived as controversial posts for no other reason than to court some kind of controversy to see if any feathers will be ruffled. I hope this isn't true and I am getting the wrong end of the stick here.
Correct; he's trolling.

Couldn't reference any Sanskrit texts.
If it's not astronomically true, it's not astrologically true.