16
I stopped reading around that time too.

Is there a point to a post that few found directly interesting? Maybe. I'd say that the subject of astrology attracts some of the loopiest people you'll meet. This website is an exception, an island of sobriety in a sea of goofiness. I appreciate that. Deb and the rest can't be thanked enough for the serious work they do here, even more so because there is so much junk out there.

If there is so much junk out there, then what are we to do with the idea that astrology is only for the special few? Anyone on this forum can easily find people who are writing using the words and phrases of traditional astrology but who don't have a clue. Is it elitist and egotistical to note that?

Another issue that's out there is that the chain of teachers was broken hundreds of years ago. We may have Lilly and Bonatti in English but we don't have the unbroken tradition of lifetimes of experience being transmitted down. Do we have any real masters of astrology left? How would the best of today stack up against Al-Biruni or Lilly?
Mark F

17
MarkF wrote:Do we have any real masters of astrology left? How would the best of today stack up against Al-Biruni or Lilly?
I think David Cochrane, Ernst Wilhelm and John Frawley would stack up just fine, sir.
If it's not astronomically true, it's not astrologically true.