Hey All, I'm a new member to the forum, but I've been reading it for quite a while, so I hope it's appropriate for me to post a topic? (I'm not posting a chart).

Basically I have been self-learning Horary for a while now, reading and referencing the books and papers of Lilly, Deborah Houlding, John Frawley, Anthony Louis, Lee Lehman, Barbara Watters and others who seem to be the "gurus" on the subject. And I've definitely improved over the last while.

My question is: Each of these astrologers seem to have a slightly different "system" or set of techniques - though sometimes dramatically different from each other - and each of them say that the way they do it works. So for example I drum into my head a way of reading the chart and analysing the symbolism (it's a lot of memorising meanings), then start working through some examples on this forum, or the books of the important writers. When seeing how some of them and some of you analyse certain charts and come to the answer I think to myself: "That is not at all how I learned to analyse a chart and I have gotten a completely different answer."

In your experience, whose system works the best and whose would you ignore. Also, why is it that they all have such different systems for an art such as Horary Astrology which is also a science and thus should have a very clearly defined set of rules. If one astrologer would look at the chart and assign the quesited to Mars and the next looks at the same chart and would assign the quesited to Jupiter then they will come to very different answers, and only one of them can be correct.

I'll give some examples of what I mean below, but feel free to ignore the rest of this message if you understand what I mean. I'd love to get your opinion. How do we/you deal with this? How do we make sure we are using the right techniques to find the right answer?

EXAMPLES (I wont mention actual names):

- X says to time the event using the applying planets. But Y says always time your event using the moon, regardless whether it is a significator.

- X says only ever use 2nd house ruler for lost objects. But Y says use either 2nd or 4th (buried treasure) depending on which sounds more like the lost object.

- X says querent is ALWAYS Lord 1. But Y says in a commercial chart the buyer is Lord 1, so if querent is seller, he would be Lord 7. And in a court case prosecution is Lord 1 and defendant Lord 7, so if the querent is defendadnt he will be L7.

- X says when assigning zodiac houses for areas in your home where you might find a lost object, House 2 is the kitchen or any room next to the entrance, House 3 is corridors and stairways and House 4 is the "informal room" of the house. But Y says House 2 is the safe/vault or your wallet, House 3 is the study and house 4 is the "old room" of the house.

- X says in a romantic question always give the man co-significator of Sun and the woman Venus, and these count as strongly in the reading as main significators. But Y says only do this in certain circumstances.

- X analysing a chart will only use the NEXT aspect to answer the question and ignore any aspects after than. But Y will allow the following few aspects to cast meaning into the answer.

- ETC. There are many more examples, many of which would lead to interpreting the chart completely differently and coming up with different answers to the same chart.

Hello Andrewfaure, and welcome!

I have also wondered the same thing for quite some time now.
Honestly, my mind is still not set on a specific explanation and I?m still open to anything. So here?s what I?ve come up with:

I don?t think you should discard anyone, but you should first try different approaches from different authors (and do so on several charts, yours or the ones in the book you?re studying) and see what ??speaks?? to you. I don?t think the answer we seek is on a technical level (as in which astrologer has the best technique ever) but the answer may be found more on a philosophical, mental, if not spiritual, level.

I remember something that Lee Lehman and John Frawley said (in one of their books I think): basically they said something like ??You need to try a system and stick to it for some time before you judge the approach to be a good one or a bad one.??
In all the books I?ve read it said that there must be a link between the querent and the question (emotions are involved here), and a connection between the question and the astrologer (only after the astrologer understands the question and what it really involves, should he cast a chart).
The chart will represent the environment around the querent which will be interpreted by the astrologer (according to the astrologer?s knowledge). Somehow it appears to me that the chart, as if it could sense the astrologer?s approach/way of doing things, align itself to the knowledge and techniques of the said astrologer. (I know it sounds crazy but?I haven?t found anything better haha)

If you try and think this way, that might give some insights to why many astrologers (despite using different approaches), still have good results in their own practice.
That could also indicate why people sometimes succeed and sometimes fail when they exercise themselves with charts on the forum (the more your methods and way of thinking align with the caster of the chart, the more likely you are to judge it correctly, even if the caster of the chart might have got it wrong the first time: maybe he missed something or lacked experience). What I mean is that the chart will yield the correct answer and that with your set of knowledge and techniques you should be able to give a correct judgment if everything goes well.
I have to say though that in some charts, using completely different methods can yield to a similar answer. But this is not always the case.

So with this theory in mind, I started to study differently. I?m not always confident in my judgment, but what helped me over the years is to find an author that explains an approach that aligns with my way of thinking (some want the chart to be according to the location of the querent, others to the location of the astrologer. Whatever the choice, I do not believe there is a right or wrong method per se, but there is certainly a right and a wrong way for you, according to the way you understand things. Also, some people have a more intuitive approach to the chart when some others have a more technical approach: like a list of things to look at in a specific order.), so find what makes sense for you (whatever your reasons) and try that.
Sometimes you will be in disagreement with the author you're following: like for a missing person (some people want the Asc. to be the missing person, others want it to be the 7th), you have to figure out what feels right to you (do I consider that the missing person if s/he could would ask me the question? Or is s/he someone you know or am I a stranger to that person?), in this case, try and explore other authors and see what they have to say and if it "clicks" with you. In the end, you might end up with a "hybrid" method, but that's okay, because you'll have tried things for yourself and it will be clear in your mind why you chose a technique over another. Only with a clear mind can you judge correctly a chart.

When I first started to study astrology I believed it was like a science, that 1+1=2 every time, but this is not so. It truly is an art, you cannot follow techniques blindly, they are just guidelines that you need to apply with a lot of common sense in order to judge a chart properly.

Anyway, I might have gone too far and I apologize for it. But I hope that I was clear enough in what I wanted to say. Let me know if you need me to explain something a bit better. And I?m really looking forward to reading what others have to say on the matter

Good luck!

Psychologists, artists, software engineers, even doctors all have different approaches and different techniques, and astrologers are the same - whether horary astrologers or not.

The only thing that can be done for any of these, and horary astrology included, is to try for yourself and see what you come up with and what you feel works. Astrology is not a science and has not passed any credible bar of scientific testing or acceptance - therefore if we see it as a craft it may be more palatable to imagine different approaches or techniques, this is especially true for horary which is essentially a divinatory art.

I second Paul's comments.

Some extra food for thought:

Astrology is a very flexible system of information gathering. Aside plain technical errors, faulty knowledge (often repeated in books) or inexperience, information can be gathered in different ways which may be contradictory.

A crucial area that appears to be, for the most part, absent from astrological education is logical thinking and contextual analysis. Many astrologers jump into interpretation without taking the step to understand the context and background of the question correctly. That is a basic error which in many cases nullifies any technique applied to a horary or natal interpretation. Thus the reason for many wrong answers in horary are not necessarily technique related.

Assuming the context in which the astrological inquiry arises is understood correctly then the choice of technical tools comes into play. And even within the same lineage or technique style there are rules that are bent or broken according to the context. Add to that the fact that horary charts sometimes are simply wrongly cast or the question is not focussed enough and we have a relatively complex craft to deal with.

As far as technique is concerned, my recommendation is to stick to techniques or to a teacher that reasonate with your way of thinking and/or perceiving and commit to refining your own knowledge. If you mix different approaches and try to make sense of contradictions you will most likely get stuck, specially without a teacher.

Take the knowledge from teachers with a pinch of salt, and knowledge from books with a bag of salt. Above all, interpret countless charts and observe the outcome. The proof will always be in the pudding. That way you will know in your experience what works and what does not work.

Also, remember that Western traditional astrology was dormant for over 200 years and even before the 1800's there were different schools of thought. We are dealing with a "rebirth" of sorts so, in my opinion, the Western traditional astrological body of knowledge has not fully matured yet.

- X says to time the event using the applying planets. But Y says always time your event using the moon, regardless whether it is a significator.

Y is just wrong. There are many systems to show time and you will have to judge what is the best in the situation. Not only we have the applying planets, but Mashallah would also use important planets in aspect to the transit and to eachother (e.g, mars and saturn are applying by trine in the horary, even occurs when mars and saturn are conjunct by transit)



- X says only ever use 2nd house ruler for lost objects. But Y says use either 2nd or 4th (buried treasure) depending on which sounds more like the lost object.


Well, there are problems with logic in this observation. For instance, almost none of lost objects nowadays are buried or treasure! What you Could do, is use the 4th as land, so location. But you should first of all have a hierarchy of priorites, or you never judge anything properly. Let`s say the object lost is a cat (6th house). 4th house can be a indication of where he is, but the cat, his state and condition, if he will return of his own, are all matters of the 6th lord. I hope this clear a little bit.


- X says querent is ALWAYS Lord 1. But Y says in a commercial chart the buyer is Lord 1, so if querent is seller, he would be Lord 7. And in a court case prosecution is Lord 1 and defendant Lord 7, so if the querent is defendadnt he will be L7.

Apples and oranges. X is talking about horary, Y is talking about electional charts, dorotheus style. don`t mix and match techniques.


- X says when assigning zodiac houses for areas in your home where you might find a lost object, House 2 is the kitchen or any room next to the entrance, House 3 is corridors and stairways and House 4 is the "informal room" of the house. But Y says House 2 is the safe/vault or your wallet, House 3 is the study and house 4 is the "old room" of the house.

Kinda of nitpicking here. Both X and Y are giving perfect valid descriptions of how the pure symbolism of the astral houses can be adapted to a modern household. X is giving kitchen because he associates house 2 with food, Y because of money. You chose what you like or you create your own associations.


- X says in a romantic question always give the man co-significator of Sun and the woman Venus, and these count as strongly in the reading as main significators. But Y says only do this in certain circumstances.

Again, priorities and hierarquies. Let`s assume libra rising, man asking, you will give venus and sun to the man, venus and mars to the woman, moon as co significator. Congratulations, 5 of 7 planets are involved. You have to choose what will be the main indicators and what will be secondary or confirmatory indications.

- X analysing a chart will only use the NEXT aspect to answer the question and ignore any aspects after than. But Y will allow the following few aspects to cast meaning into the answer.


X is against horary doctrine. The important aspect is the one between significators, and other aspects that come first may or may not hinder perfection.

Thanks for your answers and opinions guys. What you?ve said makes a lot of sense, and I?ve taken some time to absorb and think about it.

Astrology is a spiritual endeavour, and Horary Astrology is just another one of many ways for God/The Universe to speak to us and answer our questions. So I guess that is why it is so important that the chart is primarily interpreted by the astrologer who the question has been posed to and no-one else. The universe has guided the question and the querent to a specific astrologer, using a specific way of interpreting the chart to enable them to answer that person?s (or their own) question. And by the same token guided the astrologer to specific teachers to learn the art.

This also explains why sometimes I or one of you will look at a chart example by another Astrologer and see a different answer ? because that chart was not meant for your interpretation, it was meant for theirs.

So I will settle on a system of interpretation that makes the most sense to me based on the horary teachings the universe brings my way. And that will sometimes involve having to disregard some elements taught by one teacher to favour the method of another teacher.

It?s funny, because I?m quite a spiritual person and I guess I?ve been looking at Horary too logically, completely forgetting that the spiritual world works in ways we cannot even try to explain.

Thanks for your input guys

Hi Andrew,

I have some comments about an issue you have brought up:

andrewfaure wrote:X says in a romantic question always give the man co-significator of Sun and the woman Venus, and these count as strongly in the reading as main significators. But Y says only do this in certain circumstances.

The method of assigning the Sun and co-significator of men and Venus as co-significator of women, plus L1 and L7 and the Moon allows the astrologer to have a nearly complete psychological picture of the two parties involved and their relationship. If you do not use those co-significators you will not have a complete picture.

Personally, I enjoy very much using the co-significators and drilling into the details of the psyche. After all, we are composed of thoughts, emotions and sexual drives (including the psychological dimension of being male or female) and in no other area of life are those three distinct facets of the psyche as relevant to understand as in romantic relationships. Only Venus and the Sun as co-significators will tell us the sexual tendencies in a relationship separately from "persona" (thought/ego) and emotion. If you are into psychological horary you will have a more complete view of the situation by using the co-significators and analysing their receptions. You will know rather accuately why and how a relationship is in the state it is in or how it will turn out. Plus, you have two more planets that can aspect one of the others.

Having said that, some charts with house 1 or house 7 ruled by Venus or the Sun will not allow us to have such a picture. Yet, many questions can be anwered without having a full picture. And as you yourself put so well: the querent will choose the astrologer that will give him/her the answer he/she needs.

Hi Felipe.

I completely agree with you, and I have actually been taught to always us the co-significators.

Why this particularly bothered me, is when I was doing an example horary in one of the "big astrologer's" book. It was a love horary with the question something like: "With they get back together again". L1 and L7 had no aspects and weak reception, and so the astrologer concluded that they would not get back together (and apparently this is what happened in real life - they did not get back together). HOWEVER, she seemed to have completely ignored the fact that Venus and The Sun DID aspect each other, quite strongly too. And if I had personally interpreted the chart (been the initial astrologer), based on the good aspect and strong reception between Sun and Venus I would have told the querent "yes they will get back together" - and apparently I would have been wrong.

So I wondered why she didn't include the Sun and Venus in her interpretation, as I have been taught to do. But if she had, she would have made a wrong judgement. So that really got me thinking...

However, based on what I'm comfortable with, I will always use the co-significators, and use their judgements as strongly as L1 and L7. If the co-significators aspect I will assume the relationship will occur.

Hi Andrew,

Your example hints at why it is so important to be clear on the context. Books are notoriously lacking in context information, except for the most basic of situations.

Suppose that L1 is in one country and L7 in another and there are no plans to visit. A Sun-Venus aspect would not make much sense? unless they have sex via the internet or phone. And if they do, would that mean "getting back together?" Suppose the significators are in house 6 or 12, they have no power to act and thus will not do anything to cause a meeting even if the receptions were good. And so on? there are many variations and probably several possible reasons why that interpretation went that way.

After years of experience in this area I am sure that a person can only think of a question when the time is possible to answer it. I have also come to the conclusion that if they are asking a question with a particular astrologer in mind, then that is the astrologer who will accurately answer the query and no other. I think the type of astrological knowledge that person has is what is needed to find the answer.

Even on astrology forums where the question is open to everyone there is a synchronicity between the querient and the people who answer.

The 'rules' of horary are only guidelines and not always accurate guidelines at that. Consider being an astrologer in the Southern Hemisphere where the MC is North, not South, which changes the direction of locations. I have also found that the Vertex axis describes due East and West, not the Ascendant-Descendant. The seasons are reversed which can change a number of factors. Any accurate horary has to consider these factors if you live in the Southern Hemisphere.

I do think the Moon and its aspects play a large part in horary, particularly in timing.

Alice

1n

Re best method (or house, or other). I think that there is a best method for everything under the sun. One can nail a nail w a stone, w a hammer or w a demolition ball, all of which will work, but what will be the best? It is not the hammer? Of course it is. That said, there must be a 'best' method for house selection in and only in relation w astrology itself and not w "what works best for you". In my opinion, and i beg to differ, there is no "best for me". There is only time, place and skill. I use Placidus AND do my best to choose the right significator. It says that if all of us ask a q and make different charts using different methods, there will be some who will nail very accurately the answer w an identical chart, namely that the method used by them IS the best among all used. Also, a related topic, asking same q many times is, to my mind, perfectly acceptable and practical. Astrology doesn't know me per se nor cares about me. It is impartial to extreme. It shows only what i input: time and place. One can ask a zillion times the same q and astrology won't mock him for being a nag. This assumption is totally wrong, to my mind. There is an anecdotal story about an astrologer who chased someone. He physically watched the Moon in the skies above him to tell him where the man is, which is identical to making a chart for every moment. He found him. He nagged and how and he got the answer. Astrology doesn't care. It exists only at and for that precise moment and place, and shows the linear development of the affair - The shape of things to come. Ask what you want and how many times you want the same q and if you are skilled, the answer is there. The only trick is choosing the right significator. Frex, a love q. Querent sig is in 7th h, which says that he is int'd in the other party. The 7th ruler is in 5th. That says that the other party is his flirt. Now all we have to do is to look at the Moon and the rulers. Here comes the skill and not 'what works best for me'.