Hello yet again,

Continuing...

I went through Book of Wisdom (Ibnu Ezra) and found that Generosity is actually mutual reception without aspect e.g. if Saturn is in Sag and Jupiter is in Capricorn there is no mutual reception according to the ancients as there is no aspect, this is called Generosity. Modern astrologers would still call this mutual reception! So the modern version of mutual reception is actually generosity and the ancients wouldn't call it mutual reception unless there is aspect.

To Deb:-

Very well said... as always!

Next:-
Once we understand the direction of transferring of virtue via perfect reception (see my previous message), we can then clearly see why aspects to important points (e.g. Asc, MC, Arabic Parts/Lots) can be understood even better.

Planets can give and receive aspect. As those points mentioned above (Asc, MC, Arabic Parts, etc.) give out no light, they do not aspect other planets but other planets can aspect them.

When we look at a point e.g. Asc, we immediately look at its ruler. If Asc is in Sag, we immediately look at Jupiter because Jupiter is the ruler of Sag. If Jupiter aspects Asc (Asc cannot aspect Jupiter as Asc is a point but Jupiter can aspect Asc as Jupiter is a planet), there is perfect reception - we say that Jupiter (being the ruler of Sag) gives reception to Asc hence your (Asc) prime motivation is fulfilled because the ruler (Jupiter) receives you therefore Jupiter helps fulfill your prime motivation.

Another example:-
One method of judging wealth in a chart is to look to Part of Fortune. Where your Part of Fortune lies is where you theoretically could find your wealth (or money). If your Part of Fortune is in Cancer in the 7th house, you could find wealth through partnership in Cancerian manner BUT will you be able to make bucks of money? You look to the domicile ruler/dispositor of Part of Fortune - in this case it would be the moon. If moon aspects the Part of Fortune, then Moon automatically receives Part of Fortune i.e. Moon gives reception to Part of Fortune, hence Moon gives wealth to Part of Fortune...How much wealth? we judge then the zodiacal and accidental conditions of the Moon.

If Moon (dispositor/ruler by domicile) does not aspect Part of Fortune, Moon is not giving to Part of Fortune. We will have to search elsewhere. Does Jupiter (exalted ruler of Cancer) aspect of Fortune? If it does, then Jupiter receives Part of Fortune i.e. Jupiter gives reception to Part of Fortune, hence Jupiter gives wealth to Part of Fortune - and again we judge the conditons of Jupiter both zodiacally and accidentally to see how much wealth.

Let's imagine that Moon AND Jupiter aspects Part of Fortune (in Cancer) plus they are in really good condition which means that both Jupiter and Moon gives riches to Part of Fortune but at the same time Saturn aspects Part of Fortune from Aries (this is undignified Saturn i.e. Saturn in Fall) by malefic aspect i.e. a square AND Saturn does not receive Part of Fortune (why should Saturn give anything to anybody in his enemy's place as Cancer is a place where Saturn is in detriment!) - this means partial loss of riches by Saturn (the delineation of Saturn might point out who/what is the cause of that loss).

In conclusion, the direction of reception holds the key to understanding of who gets what from who.

Saturn receives (i.e. gives reception or welcomes or gladly assists) any planet/point in Capricorn (provided there is aspect and even a malefic aspect) because Capricorn is his beloved place (Saturn rules Capricorn).

Venus does not receive (i.e. does not give reception or does not welcome or does not assist) any planet/point in Virgo (even if there is good aspect) simply because Virgo is her place of hatred (Venus is fall in Virgo).

Well, that is quite a lot to take in, but I will study it. It puzzles me if JF is wrong on so many points, why is he so successful?

Deb I will try to find the book you recommended.

Nobody spoke to Frawley's point of view on Considerations before Judgement. They seem logical. What is your point of view on them ?

Thanks for the time you have all spent on this thread. It is appreciated.

Deb and Astrojin

Wonderful information, extremely informative

Thanks to both of you for illuminating the areas to look out for in Frawley's book where he differs from Lilly, it certainly pushes me to keep re-reading Lilly to stay grounded in the traditonal

MarG

Hi Moondance

I?m sure JF deserves his success. There are a lot of factors involved in being successful and writing good books, and no one in this thread is arguing that his book doesn?t have merit or is not worth recommending for what it is in its entirety. It is more the question of whether this particular book is a recommended preparation for studying Lilly: ie does it lead the reader towards a clearer understanding of what Lilly is doing? People assume that this is Frawley?s objective because he stresses his reliance upon Lilly?s work in his acknowledgement and again at the start of his book. It?s at that level that it causes controversy.

No I don?t go along with his views on the CBJ. On the other hand I don?t think of them as ?strictures? either; most of them have something very valuable to add ? they are what they are called: things to take into consideration before judgement. On a few, very rare occasions, I have not liked the look of what I was likely to get into, based on the presence of some of those considerations and I have been cautious in how I got involved in the matter ? afterwards realising the good reasons for that. But very often they inform my judgement. I think they are important and shouldn?t be dismissed out of hand.

Frawley differs in so many ways from the tradition that I could not in all honestly call his book 'a contemporary companion'. Much of The Horary Textbook bears no relation to what Lilly taught in Christian Astrology. Frawley's book will cause confusion for beginners who read him first before reading Lilly. Frawley's version of orbs and aspects, planets at the end of a sign unable to form aspects, the rules of perfection and imperfection in horary judgments, such as collection and translation of light, frustration and prohibition are all at variance with the tradition. In fact, it could be said that Frawley has created his own more modern version of horary.

I would recommend reading Christian Astrology, which can be downloaded free off the internet, and studying it before moving on to modern horary books. Anthony Louis's first book Horary Astrology and Lee Lehman's The Martial Art of Horary Astrology are to be recommended.

I just wanted to state I am delighted to see Maurice has added his input to this thread. I am a great admirer of all his work. In the context of this discussion I strongly recommend his book 'The Void of Course Moon'.
This book demonstrates convincingly how Lilly approached the subject of out of sign aspects and void of course Moon in Christian Astrology. Its a valuable addition to any traditional astrologer's library.

I think Leel Lehman's book, The Martial Art of Astrology, also moves away from traditional astrology in a number of ways. Again, this does not mean that her book is not of great value but people need to be aware that she sometimes advocates things that are not strictly traditional. For example, Lee uses the 5th house for relationships that do not include marriage. So, any question that involves asking about someone you have met or someone you simply date gets the 5th and a husband or wife or de facto gets the 7th. You will never see the 5th being used in this way by traditional astrologers. She even says that sometimes people put their relationships in the 7th when they should be in the 5th because they are in denial about the relationship and see it as more serious than it is. I also do not agree completely with her 3rd/9th house differentiation. To be fair, Lee usually explains when she differs from tradition and why she differs but it is something to look out for. However, like John's books, there is still a great deal of value in this book as long as the differences are kept in mind.

I'm intrigued by the amount of controversy JF has managed to arouse here! Even though his methods seem to be thought of as not 100% traditional by other posters, I'm sticking with them as they work. And let's face it, his are the only recently published, *accessible* texts on traditional astrology, even if it's his own "brand" or "style" of traditional astrology. It's got to be better than the dross filling most MBS bookshelves (I work in Waterstones and it breaks my heart to walk past that section)...

No one can teach his own "brand" or "style" of traditional astrology. If it doesn?t use traditional technique then it?s not ?traditional astrology?. It?s just a personal astrology! If someone exploits the title ?textbook? they are responsible for teaching accepted practice, not a personal philosophy. How can Frawley do this when he makes such a fierce criticism of others when they do it?

Al, you made me smile! We're all only human. Sheesh, if we don't practise our own "style" then what on earth can we practise? We are individual people, all different, not robots! We cannot step out of ourselves in order to judge a chart or write a book. (See in "The Real Astrology" where Frawley talks about "noise", page 109.) I doubt there are two astrologers alive who would agree 100% on every single point of theory, or of judging a single chart, even, just as there are no two doctors who would agree 100% on the best treatment for their patient, or two teachers on the best way to educate a child, or anything else!

The point about Frawley is that he IS teaching traditional astrology. His methods are based on traditional sources, and more importantly, are accurate, which I take to be the barometer of effective astrology. Show me a chart where his methods fail to give the correct answer and we can start to criticise his teachings. Okay, so you don't like the way he does it. But the idea that there is one true, pure, undiluted form of traditional astrology is just nonsense. There never has been and never will be so long as the human race consists of more than one individual.

Dear kerenhappuch,
You say that John Frawley does teach traditional astrology, can you please show us the particular passages in his book The Horary Textbook where he does this?

Maurice.

You say that John Frawley does teach traditional astrology, can you please show us the particular passages in his book The Horary Textbook where he does this?

Instead of turning the entire topic of horary astrology into an anti John Frawley rant, let's start by defining our terms.

Precisely what is "traditional astrology" and who are those who meet this rgorous definition without exception? After all we cannot determine who is not a traditional astrologer unless we know what it is that makes someone a traditional astrologer in the first place.

Tom