Seiko wrote:The problems start when the question is very specific. Like, "Will my team win tonight?". You look at the chart -- 'the opponent's significator is combust, your team will surely win'. But when the querent's team loses with like 0-6, you think it's impossible not with such a debility like that.

Got any chart examples of this? I'd love to see what is, in essence a war chart ala Bonatti, having a combust significator signifying a side winning by such a margin.

I will look for it, it is somewhere on my old computer.

Again, I'm being a wiseass but I don't think it's smart to use war testimonies because in sports you can get lucky. Like, in ice hockey your team can be very strong but if your team's goalkeeper has a bad hair day he can give up a number of easy goals just like that. Whereas in war if two armies are going at each other in an open field or something, the strongest or biggest army will definitely crush the smaller one.

Maybe you can beat in-form Mike Tyson in a tennis match but you will not defeat him in the ring.

Seiko wrote:I will look for it, it is somewhere on my old computer.

Again, I'm being a wiseass but I don't think it's smart to use war testimonies because in sports you can get lucky. Like, in ice hockey your team can be very strong but if your team's goalkeeper has a bad hair day he can give up a number of easy goals just like that. Whereas in war if two armies are going at each other in an open field or something, the strongest or biggest army will definitely crush the smaller one.

Maybe you can beat in-form Mike Tyson in a tennis match but you will not defeat him in the ring.

Thanks, I would like to see that.

Actually the Romans were famed for defeating armies many times their number due to better training, equipment and strategy. If the goalie has a bad time, then, for me, that is part of the game and will be represented in the chart.

With respect Seiko, you are over-complicating things; over-thinking them. In my mind, you ask the question and interpret the chart ignoring all of the little nuances of the story you conjure up in your head and stick to what has gone before you (past astrologers) and what is in front of you (the chart). The goalie's hair or Mike Tyson's tennis racquet has little to do with this.

With all due respect, I'm not. This is just the philosophy behind it. Actually, it's pretty simple:
general question (describe things) = general testimony is OK;
specific question (where you need to pinpoint things) = specific testimony.

If you think the war testimonies work, go ahead and publish the charts before matches and we'll see what happens. I'm not being a prick here, if they work over the long-term I will be the first one to give you praise.

Seiko wrote:With all due respect, I'm not. This is just the philosophy behind it. Actually, it's pretty simple:
general question (describe things) = general testimony is OK;
specific question (where you need to pinpoint things) = specific testimony.

If you think the war testimonies work, go ahead and publish the charts before matches and we'll see what happens. I'm not being a prick here, if they work over the long-term I will be the first one to give you praise.

If you find it so simple, I fail to see why you are talking on about land-mines and tennis matches when it is clear as day in Christian Astrology that the querent applying to a dignified malefic which has testimony in the ASC sign means the money will be had. Add to this a second testimony that this particular malefic is widely conjunct the ASC and is the ASC degree's almuten and the applying Venus rules the other person's money. Now that is simple, adding in non-astrological factors to a chart is not. There is also the added bonus of my own money chart being perfected with a similar configuration. if you want to make a judgement based upon the astrology and then add that the goalie might mess up, so the other team might actually win, ok but its not very astrological, is it?

Work for sports in an electional sense? No they don't. I have spent almost two years working on my own method for football games and I do pretty well with gambling on it but it is, in its methodology, nothing like anything on this forum or in Bonatti's treatise on war. As for working in war, then yes I'd have to say it works great since that was Bonatti's source of income for a good part of his life and if it didn't work, he wouldn't have had a job for very long, would he?

Then why "if L1 makes an aspect to a planet dignified in the ASC, it shows the business will be dispatched" is not a rule for every single chart?

It works only when it comes to recovering the borrowed money?

It should've been a rule, then?
There are ways business can be brought to perfection:
a) conjunction (between the principal significators)
b) sextile or trine
c) square or opposition with a reception
d) planets dwelling in the proper houses

then why there isn't:
e) the Lord of the Ascendent makes an aspect to a planet dignified in the ASC?

Seiko wrote:Then why "if L1 makes an aspect to a planet dignified in the ASC, it shows the business will be dispatched" is not a rule for every single chart?

It works only when it comes to recovering the borrowed money?

It should've been a rule, then?
There are ways business can be brought to perfection:
a) conjunction (between the principal significators)
b) sextile or trine
c) square or opposition with a reception
d) planets dwelling in the proper houses

then why there isn't:
e) the Lord of the Ascendent makes an aspect to a planet dignified in the ASC?

I don't think Horary is so rigid. I think it was Goran who mentioned this earlier but it doesn't work the way John Frawley proposes. There are no hard and fast rules, in my opinion. Each chart is to be read with certain principles in mind and then treated as an individual. The collection of testimonies is then interpreted and formed into a judgement. If Lilly has found, or read, that something signifies a certain outcome for money charts alone, then I will bear that in mind but I will be watchful of it in other charts. Here though, we have two seperate charts with similar configurations asked about similar topics and we have perfection in both matters. Why not accpet that it signifies what we read and experience it to do and then concern ourselves about "rules" and future charts when the time comes to do so? There is no point in worrying about what works and what doesn't in entirely imaginary situations.

I have a post on my computer here that outlines the significator applying to a dignified and powerful Jupiter in a "job" horary. Using some of the "rules" which Sahl outlines, this should have been a "no" but the person got the job and the conclusion was that it was signified by the application to Jupiter, so I don't think we can rule out the effects of a powerfully placed benefic interacting with the significator. My point is, there are so many "rules" in astrology and many of them are so contradictory to each other that it is not possible to pre-define a rigid set of commandments to teach someone before even looking to the chart. We have to collect all of the information we can from the chart and then try to mould it into a story which will describe the situation and, for me, that comes not from pre-set rules but from experience.

Konrad:

.....I fail to see why you are talking on about land-mines and tennis matches when it is clear as day in Christian Astrology that the querent applying to a dignified malefic which has testimony in the ASC sign means the money will be had. Add to this a second testimony that this particular malefic is widely conjunct the ASC and is the ASC degree's almuten and the applying Venus rules the other person's money.

Konrad, we all need to remember that at present Mercury is rated R, not PG(parental guidence sugested), and Ive seen the best of astrologers get caught in the trap of quarreling while Merc is rectro. But your points are outstanding in your argument!

But the detail missing is the querant Did Not get all of thier money returned and the stocks promised as interest. The querant actually hired two different men to help retrieve thier money(the first one somehow failed, natal sco sun querant is secretive), and that cost the querant dearly and ate up part of what was owed. Even if the natal sco sun querant was quite happy with the outcome as they felt somewhat justice or retribution had been accomplished.

There is another point I saw in hindsight and I noticed it in the beginning of this horary yet because of it's concept of being out on a limb in horary I'm not going to bring it up now, what Lilly implies in CAI til after the rectrograde at present is over.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Clinton Soule wrote:Konrad:

.....I fail to see why you are talking on about land-mines and tennis matches when it is clear as day in Christian Astrology that the querent applying to a dignified malefic which has testimony in the ASC sign means the money will be had. Add to this a second testimony that this particular malefic is widely conjunct the ASC and is the ASC degree's almuten and the applying Venus rules the other person's money.

Konrad, we all need to remember that at present Mercury is rated R, not PG(parental guidence sugested), and Ive seen the best of astrologers get caught in the trap of quarreling while Merc is rectro. But your points are outstanding in your argument!

But the detail missing is the querant Did Not get all of thier money returned and the stocks promised as interest. The querant actually hired two different men to help retrieve thier money(the first one somehow failed, natal sco sun querant is secretive), and that cost the querant dearly and ate up part of what was owed. Even if the natal sco sun querant was quite happy with the outcome as they felt somewhat justice or retribution had been accomplished.

Yes Clinton but Saturn is still Saturn and he is in his joy, so he will be doing extra Saturn-like things such as limiting the outcome and making hard work of things for the querent.

The application which Lilly describes is very general and it is up to the reader to apply it to the configurations present in their own charts.

Konrad wrote:
I don't think Horary is so rigid. I think it was Goran who mentioned this earlier but it doesn't work the way John Frawley proposes. There are no hard and fast rules, in my opinion. Each chart is to be read with certain principles in mind and then treated as an individual. The collection of testimonies is then interpreted and formed into a judgement. If Lilly has found, or read, that something signifies a certain outcome for money charts alone, then I will bear that in mind but I will be watchful of it in other charts. Here though, we have two seperate charts with similar configurations asked about similar topics and we have perfection in both matters. Why not accpet that it signifies what we read and experience it to do and then concern ourselves about "rules" and future charts when the time comes to do so? There is no point in worrying about what works and what doesn't in entirely imaginary situations.

I have a post on my computer here that outlines the significator applying to a dignified and powerful Jupiter in a "job" horary. Using some of the "rules" which Sahl outlines, this should have been a "no" but the person got the job and the conclusion was that it was signified by the application to Jupiter, so I don't think we can rule out the effects of a powerfully placed benefic interacting with the significator. My point is, there are so many "rules" in astrology and many of them are so contradictory to each other that it is not possible to pre-define a rigid set of commandments to teach someone before even looking to the chart. We have to collect all of the information we can from the chart and then try to mould it into a story which will describe the situation and, for me, that comes not from pre-set rules but from experience.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy.

I agree to a certain level that we should try to read the chart and include some more information than just 1+1 BUT we should start from the rigid rules and then carefully consider what else is going on in the chart.

Otherwise, if something does not work as expected to our mind, there is a great risk of making all kinds of assumptions and start adding things that shouldn't even be considered.

For example, Frawley with all due respect is off the mark in some issues. And you wonder why -- I mean, he has looked at a gazillion charts, he should be spot-on with everything, right? A number of others modern day traditional astrologers, they sometimes disagree on fundamental things. Why is that? Because people assume things and keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. It becomes a habit. And I know that very well, trust me, I've been using the same wrong approach for a very long time. Not saying I'm in the clear now but at least I'm getting somewhere.

So pretty much you have to keep in mind what the great minds of the past and the present have said but you kinda have to do it yourself. Practice makes perfect, hopefully

Maybe the almuten works with recovering the goods, but it is just one chart. If there will be more charts that show the same thing with the almuten, then I will readily admit that it works.

I have seen things that worked 7 times out of ten so I assumed it's a solid rule but over the long term I was proved wrong. Just a coincidence.

Maybe the Querent's business partner (the guy who borrowed the money) is the Querent's neighbor (3rd house) and his money is H4 ruled by Saturn. Or maybe Saturn shows the end of the matter (the 4th house), or Saturn represents the guys who went to collect the money if I understand correctly, or lawyers (the 9th house from the 7th house = the 3rd house). Not saying any of the before-mentioned is right, just a possibility (I'm too lazy to study the chart thoroughly at this hour -- and frankly I don't care anymore). Most probably there is an obvious testimony we just don't see right now, I personally tend to overlook the obvious facts quite often, sadly.

We agree to disagree but apparently without further evidence it's just an opinion against an opinion. Well, you have Lilly on your side so maybe you're more in the right.

It was a nice discussion. Peace and see you round.