13 by Levente Laszlo Tom wrote:Venus (generally considered warm and moist but there are some who say cold and moist) rules cold and dry Taurus. In fact each planet (not including the lights) gets one of its nature and one that is opposite its nature except Jupiter. Tom, I would change the order of your words. Venus is generally considered cold and moist but there are some (namely, Ptolemy and his followers) who say she is warm and moist. It comes from Ptolemy's idiosyncratic cosmology which has been obsolete for long. In this way all the four elements are represented by the qualities of benefics and malefics, and this is a basis of allocation of bounds. ?Al? r-Ri??l speaks about bounds not as of planets but as of different (ie. fiery, earthy, airy, watery and neutral) elements. If so, only malefics get houses which are of opposite nature, counting that Mercury is a changeable one. steven wrote:In fact you won't find any medieval or Hellenistic astrologer making the statement that the Moon is peregrine, or a stranger or in an unfamiliar sign when in Gemini! It is a debility according to Bonatti as it is in his 5th consideration (no. 6) which he clearly draws from Sahl ibn Bi?r. Quote Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:51 am
14 by astrojin Hello, To RC: After November I plan to take Zoller's advanced course. (What do you think of it?) I have his foundation course. I am also ordering Frawley's horary book. Are you taking Zoller's advanced course given by him or through new-library.com? I think it is far far better to get the course from the teacher himself...(though I believe he is unwell now...) You're ordering Frawley's book? I think it is much better that you study horary-Lilly's method through anyone who is competent (or you can try and read his Chriatian astrology!), and then later go through Frawley's method...(only my suggestion). Frawley's have a number of very good ideas to use from his book (his course is bloody expensive!) but he also "innovates" from Lilly's methods... To Zuli: We understand that Scorpio (her fall sign) is worst for Moon. And yet, which of both Capricorn and Gemini is worse place for Moon? Judging by essential dignities alone, detriment (Capricorn) is "worse" than peregrine (Gemini). Bu we must look at the function of the planets... Good, best, bad, worst - for what? Moon ruler of the 10th in scorpio is probably bad as your career may "fall" (unless you choose an alternative career or a career that is non-mainstream). Moon in Scorpio in the 3rd may be better for astrologers (Valens, if I am not mistaken, has this moon's position) as it will be interpreted as you being able to uncover secrets of ancient texts or you have the gift of divination (Moon in Scorpio in 3rd house, her house of Joy, makes moon ruler of 11th and exalted ruler of 9th by whole sign house system). Why divination? Divination is considered non-mainstream (Moon in fall in Scorpio), domain of the ninth house (moon exalted ruler of the 9th), gifts of the goddess (3rd House), some succesess in divining (moon being in house of Joy) and the Greeks would say that you need to be guided by good spirit/daemon to be able to divine the future (moon ruler of the 11th - house of good daemon)... Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:54 am
15 by RC astrojin wrote:Hello, To RC: Are you taking Zoller's advanced course given by him or through new-library.com? I think it is far far better to get the course from the teacher himself...(though I believe he is unwell now...) You're ordering Frawley's book? I think it is much better that you study horary-Lilly's method through anyone who is competent (or you can try and read his Chriatian astrology!), and then later go through Frawley's method...(only my suggestion). Frawley's have a number of very good ideas to use from his book (his course is bloody expensive!) but he also "innovates" from Lilly's methods... ... I had planned to take the advance course directly from him. But then someone told me that his wife Dianne is now teaching it and I don't know anything about her. Do you? I'm not sure if he'll be having any input in the course. As for Frawly, I've ordered his horary book only. I have LIlly's Christian Astrology and am still going through it little by little. I did learn a lot from Mr. Zoller's foundation course. I come from modern astro. background. Even with money being equal, I would have taken Zoller's course. But with Frawley's fee factored in, there is no contest there for me. Regards, RC Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:37 am
16 by Levente Laszlo Steven, I am very grateful that you have rewritten this remarkable post. I can absolutely agree with your views. The only thing I would like to notice is using Dorotheus as a source text. At the moment, unfortunately, we cannot take granted what is from him, as his original poem is lost, its adaptation in Pahlavi is also lost, and although we can compare an extent Arabic translation from this Pahlavi adaptation made by ?Umar at-Tabar? with some excerpts in Greek (word-to-word quotations and paraphrases, variously), there is a lot that still remains obscure, as this Arabic version is an adapted one with several additions and intermissions and the Greek excerpts by no means cover the whole original. In the case of the corruptions of Moon, you quoted the Arabic paraphrase which we can compare with a chapter from Hephaestio of Thebes who paraphrases it shortly and adds some verses from the original, too. We are very fortunate: from comparison we can be sure that Dorotheus did count these cases of corruption, except for the mention of 'via combusta' and the ninth place (no. 9and 11 in your numbering) which cannot be found in Greek sources. I wanted to note it because sometimes (and please, do not take as I am addressing it to you) people think the Arabic adaptation indicates what was in the original, still, there are numerous cases where it reflects the innovation of later time. Yet, it can be considered as a minor problem, it led to the now refuted theory that interrogative astrology originates from at least Dorotheus' times. Last edited by Levente Laszlo on Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:41 pm
17 by Tom I don't understand. I wasn't trying to challenge the system. Is that directed to me or astrojin? If a student doesn't understand a concept propounded by an authority, it is simply best to ask or better yet, try to determine why the authority would say what he said. Put aside Steven's response, for the moment - that's advanced stuff. I'm not saying don't read it, just put it aside for the moment. Let' stick with Lilly. Lilly said the Moon does not delight in Gemini. It is fair to ask, "Why does Lilly say that?" Then look at the Moon in Gemini. Using the table of dignities that Lilly uses we see the Moon has no essential dignity there. Since Lilly is referring (I think or that is what I got from your post) only to the Moon's position in Gemini, then Lilly is only referring to essential dignity. It is a fair assumption that this is why he said what he did. However to take Lilly's assertion and claim that it is inconsistent with a thoroughly modern assumption, i.e. that Gemini rules the third house and therefore the idea the Moon is weak in Gemini is an inconsistency, is a challenge. It's one thing to challenge Lilly from a position of experience, people do it all the time. It is another to compare what Lilly is saying to a modern idea and come to the conclusion that Lilly is being inconsistent. It's apples and oranges. I don't know that much about Zoller's course. I do know one person who took and he is, as a result, a fine astrologer. Deb wrote: An earlier source for this comment is Bonatti?s 5th consideration: Quote: The sixth [way that the Moon is afflicted] is when she is in Gemini, which is the 12th sign from her own. I?m sure its older still, but I have that page open at the moment so this post caught my eye. I was just going from an increasingly faulty memory. I probably should have left Culpeper out of it instead of assigning a belief to him that he may not have held. The larger point is that someone, and maybe many someones look at the Moon to be weak in Gemini due to her position in the 12th of her domicile. Frankly, I've never been comfortable with this, but I haven't looked at it closely either. Why just the Moon? Why not Jupiter in Scorpio? And Capricorn is the 12th of Aquarius. What is Saturn to do? Apparently Steven has looked at the the idea of Moon in Gemini being weak , and I'm glad he took the time that he did to respond: Osthenes, too. Osthanes wrote: Tom, I would change the order of your words. Venus is generally considered cold and moist but there are some (namely, Ptolemy and his followers) who say she is warm and moist. You might be right, I've never taken the time to add up those for and those against her being warm and moist. Most of the people I've read use warm and moist. I may not have read enough. Tom Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:16 pm
18 by Levente Laszlo Tom, please, don't take as personal. I am just struggling with English , so my posts are often impolitely short. Most Renaissance sources follow Ptolemy and that is why man can find his opinion almost everywhere. Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:26 pm
19 by Tom Are you taking Zoller's advanced course given by him or through new-library.com? I think it is far far better to get the course from the teacher himself...(though I believe he is unwell now...) Robert Zoller is not a well man at the moment, although he may be getting better. It may be quite a while before he is well enough to teach again. Tom Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:34 pm
20 by Tom Tom, please, don't take as personal. I am just struggling with English Smile, so my posts are often impolitely short. Most Renaissance sources follow Ptolemy and that is why man can find his opinion almost everywhere. I didn't take it as personal. There was absolutely nothing personal in your post. Just for the record: I write "on the run" a lot. I sit down, try to cobble together a response where it is warranted and after checking for spelling and sometimes even grammar, I hit "submit." Since I am a horrible typist my editing is 99.9% for spelling and grammar, I don't often have time so I don't often check for style and I may come off as abrupt, when I don't mean to. Your point is valid. I was not even remotely offended. Thanks for contributing, you seem to really know your stuff. Tom Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:45 pm
21 by Tom Steven Thank you for all the work you put into those posts. I'll hold off on the mystery chart. I haven't' had the time to put a decent post together regarding the individual, so you've just given me the excuse I need. I'm looking forward to reading yours. Regarding the Moon: I believe RC quoted Lilly as saying the Moon did not "delight" in Gemini. I would tend to think of a lack of delight as far less of a problem than "corruption." If the Moon is weak in Gemini it is not as serious as debilitated malefics in hard aspect to something. But I still have a problem with the idea that all planets are corrupted in the 12th of their domicile. Saturn is the most obvious problem. Jupiter in Scorpio or even Aquarius is not a serious problem that I've noticed. The Sun is peregrine in Cancer, and Mars is in detriment in Libra, so they have their problems without the added burden of being in the 12th of their domicile. A planet in its fall detriment is already corrupt, so Venus in Virgo and Aries is already debilitated without the additional problem of being the the 12th of her house(s). As for being in the opposite house of its joy, this would be an accidental debility, if in fact it is one. I don't recall too many problems associated with Venus in the 11th, or Jupiter in the 5th. We may be putting too fine a point on things here. I will pay closer attention to these things from now on though. Thanks again for your posts. Tom Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:58 pm
22 by RC RC wrote:I don't understand. I wasn't trying to challenge the system. Is that directed to me or astrojin? Tom wrote: .... However to take Lilly's assertion and claim that it is inconsistent with a thoroughly modern assumption, i.e. that Gemini rules the third house and therefore the idea the Moon is weak in Gemini is an inconsistency, is a challenge. It's one thing to challenge Lilly from a position of experience, people do it all the time. It is another to compare what Lilly is saying to a modern idea and come to the conclusion that Lilly is being inconsistent. It's apples and oranges. Tom, I understand your point. However, again, I wasn't challenging his (Lilly's) assertion. I was only asking someone to explain why it was so and further stating why it confused me so that the area of confusion would be addressed (which it was) and which was what I thought I had expressed. I think this was just your perception of what I said. (She sais softly, without challenge) You need not put me in my place. I know I am a beginner in traditional technique. Best, RC Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:41 pm
23 by RC Tom wrote:Are you taking Zoller's advanced course given by him or through new-library.com? I think it is far far better to get the course from the teacher himself...(though I believe he is unwell now...) Robert Zoller is not a well man at the moment, although he may be getting better. It may be quite a while before he is well enough to teach again. Tom He predicted his upcoming illness back when I took the foundation course. I will have to re-read what he said about it to see if he gave more detail as to a recovery period. RC Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:46 pm
24 by Tom I wasn't challenging his (Lilly's) assertion. I was only asking someone to explain why it was so and further stating why it confused me so that the area of confusion would be addressed (which it was) and which was what I thought I had expressed. Understood. Maybe I jumped too quickly. It is just that I strongly believe that all of us, you, me, the guy next door, learn better and faster if we rid ourselves of the idea that challenging absolutely everything before we are ready to do so is a good idea or that learning well,what someone has to say without looking for loopholes is a bad idea. I've seen this not only in astrology, but in virtually every subject including medicine. Holistic medicine may be a good idea in many places, but that it has its good points does not render all other methods useless. The same is true for conventional medicine. Lilly makes mistakes. He is or was after all, human. Lilly says and does things that cause even his most ardent supporters to disagree, but we really need to learn just what it is he is saying before we sit down to criticize. That's what the skeptics do; the criticize what they don't understand. I'm sorry for the confusion. I want people to learn and I think that a little blind acceptance in the beginning is a good idea. I'll mention an example of poor thinking by a famous astrologer. He once said that CA Book III (nativities) is not a good astrology book. This is simply untrue. And the person saying it should know better, but doesn't know enough about Lilly's natal astrology to see how wrong he is. It is one thing to believe there are better ways to do things than Lilly did, and quite another to believe that Lilly didn't know what he was talking about. This is the sort of thing that drives me up a wall. Keep plugging. All the best Tom Quote Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:31 pm