Modern horary astrologers get 2 ? 3 clients per day and spend much more time to them than the ten minuts to dozens of clients per day in Lilly's days. (see Keith Thomas' - Religion and the Decline of Magic).

I think that is partly due to choice not opportunity. A friend of mine has done a few horary sessions at psychic fairs and the clients were thick and fast! Technology has certainly changed consultation methods with questions by email ,telephone and even Skype!

Its difficult to really define exactly what we mean by traditional astrology. I do think we can be too precious about what the idea of astrological tradition means. I dont perceive some rigid cut off in 1800 or 1900 as especially helpful. The tradition is a living ongoing process of astrological practice not just a past event. I agree with Deb we cannot live in a hermetically sealed environment and just practice an unadulterated medieval or hellenistic astrology. We have a very different perception of reality in terms religious world view, scientific knowledge and technological sophistication for good or ill.

Astrology in the ancient and medieval world took place place in a very different context where life was very often 'nasty, bruitish and short'. Tom often points out here that the very black and white, and negative tone of astrological comments in traditional sources (e.g. Firmicus ) was a technique of showing an astrological principle at its most extreme as a teaching tool. Probably the opposite of the tendency in contempiorary astrology to give a more positive and less literal interpretation. While that may very well be true we also need to keep in mind the different world these writings came from. Disease, warfare, high infant mortality, women's common death in childbirth etc meant that life expectancy was often remarkably short at various points in history. Modern medicine and much longer life expectancy in the developed west has changed the cultural context of the astrology not the astrology itself.

We also have the luxury of access to a range of astrological sources from Babylonian Omen texts to modern writing unparalleled for any of our predecessers. They often had a hazy idea of the historical origin of many of the astrological techniques they utilised. For example Morin and John Patridge thought the parts were 'Moorish superstition' that had crept into a pure classical astrology.

In the past many astrologers had to justify astrological practice in the face of religious criticism or even persecution from Christian, Islamic or Jewish religious authorities. Most didn't doubt the validity of astrology. The question was whether it linked the astrologer to the black arts and the works of the devil. The Medieval compromise was the distinction between judicial and natural astrology.

The challenge for contemporary astrology is justifying its very existence in an increasingly hostile secular environment where statistical empiricism and 'scientism' seem to be the final arbiter. In some respects this process can be fruitful as many of us are abandoning an unsustainable astrology of material causes in favour of one based on signs.

Plus so called contemporary 'traditional astrology' has many differences of its own. For example look at aspects. John Frawley teaches his students to dispense with the traditional planetary orbs. Does this divergence from 'the tradition' mean he has abandoned the tradition? Or is he simply a contemporary astrologer dispensing with a technique that genuinely doesn't match his personal experience? Maybe the problem is seeking to adopt simplistic labels in the first place.

That doesn't mean we can white wash fundamental differences in technique. Assigning the outer planets rulership of signs is a quite basic difference in approach. I dont care what period an astrologer comes from. That approach inevitably introduces a very different outlook in reading a chart and understanding of the signs.

My personal involvement in astrology can be divided into the period before and after I adopted classical rulerships. Delineation of charts before then was confusing and incredibly vague. Others will no doubt disagree. However for me its just as fundamental as a sidereal vs tropical zodiac. In neither instance though can I honestly state those astrologers are 'wrong'. Its just not the kind of astrology I work with because it doesn't work for me or interest me. I cannot from that infer it cannot work for someone else.

Mark

Tried to delete.

Paul quotes from an unidentied source:

"Transiting Pluto conjunct Moon brings major life changing experiences and these changes are deeply felt at the emotional level. Pluto conjunct the Moon will bring up intense psychological issues from deep in the soul, which will lead to a complete transformation of the emotional life. This transformation may start with a stripping away of the emotional security blanket, and you and other people have to adjust to this raw you."

Well, Paul... The last time Pluto was conjunct my Moon, there occurred a "complete transformation of the emotional life." It was deep, lasting, life-changing.

I looked at a transit chart from my own life, some 48 years in my past, the other day. I was hospitalized, the only time in my life I have experienced a serious illness. Gosh, Saturn was on my Sun, by transit, to degree. You're right, transits are bottom-of-the-list. I wonder if you use solar returns? Morin wrote a whole chapter about them. And they are nothing but a special case of transits. Why does the first Saturn return seem to be so notorious if transits are bottom-of-the-list. Besides, the complaint about Pluto is that its transits produce no effects; I put Saturn up here, tongue in cheek, to illustrate the simple fact: not all transits produce Earth-shaking events in our lives. I know Mars is a lightweight, but he stationed exactly on my Ascendant. I was watching closely: I observed Nothing during the entire retrograde span. But some transits DO produce powerful effects.

Actually I am cheating with this Saturn transit. I have already noticed "effects" from it, but they are not -- so far -- dramatic. But the application of transiting Saturn to natal Moon (lady of the horoscope, intercepted in Fourth) seems, since about several weeks ago, to be producing "feelings of isolation," of being cut off, alone. I have experienced depression as a lifelong periodic occurrence. (I never knew I "suffered from depression" until just a few years ago, when I realzed that I had all the symptoms.) But what has struck me during this transit is that it has not produced depression; in fact, the realization was that I have not experienced depression in a long time -- an "abnormal" state for me. Such seemingly minor, highly subective, things are part and parcel of transits. The realization I describe is a very significant one. Without working at it, never with any medication, the "normal" depressions that have been with me all my life seem to have disappeared. With Saturn crossing over the planet of the Emotions, depression, melancholy, gloom would seem to be something normally expected. The "feelings of isolation" I mention are of external origin. People I normally have a good deal of contact with seem to have disappeared and I feel out of touch. Saturn's transits are quite often very positive and constructive in their effects, particularly as we grow older and have grown into a more realistic and mature perspective on life.

It surprises me that you took my post so seriously. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, while pointing out that even the traditional planets can and do transit natal planets and points without effects, just as Pluto is said to do.

Dave wrote:It surprises me that you took my post so seriously. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, while pointing out that even the traditional planets can and do transit natal planets and points without effects, just as Pluto is said to do.

I hope Paul forgives me if I am wrong with this, but I think that was his point. The transits will only show something if one of the larger scale Chronocators signify it. By that I mean the Firdaria, distributions, profections and of course the actual radix itself.

A Dutch astrologer (Jos Terwiel, pseudonym of George Bode) once remarked that the effect of transits diminish as we grow older. Whether this is generally true or not but it seems that I notice my transits of the last few years less than I did previously (and I'm only just over half way, according to life expectancy). However, I also paid less attention to them the last few years. Another report I read from an astrologer is that he never noticed any effect of transits on his grandmother. I wonder how this can be. Perhaps there is more explanation for these absence of effects than the rules of hierarchy of techniques alone.

Paul wrote:
Dammit, Pluto crossed my ascendant when I was a child. I'm always missing out!

Well, obviously it's too far from angles now but if you have those favorite modern astrologer's pattern in chart, like "handle of the bucket" or
"empty leg of t-square" in your 4th quadrant (1st-4th houses) than you might have fun
I've also experienced transiting Uranus crossing my IC when emigrated, changed country and residence.

Dave wrote:Paul quotes from an unidentied source:

I literally just googled pluto conjunct moon transit and took one of the top from the list. Here's the source:
http://darkstarastrology.com/transiting ... unct-moon/

not all transits produce Earth-shaking events in our lives.

I think you'll find I made the very same point earlier on.
However. The point that Tom made was that modern astrologers do suggest that Pluto's transits WILL be noticed. He looked and he didn't notice. Whereas traditional astrology puts it bottom of the list, modern astrology puts transits top of the list in a lot of ways. This is the only point I was attempting to make here.

So to summarise it as clear as possible: Many modern astrologers suggest that pluto's transits WILL be noticed. Perhaps this is the problem. Perhaps we need to see them more as a 'bottom of the list' approach like we do in traditional astrology.
For example I've had Saturn transits that have produced no particularly dramatic 'effect' and I've had Pluto transits which similarly don't.

Over the past decade Pluto has been opposition by Sun, Mercury and Mars and nothing spectacular has happened. I personally don't believe that Pluto's transits coincide with particular events that can be demonstrably measured like this however. I see it more as a 'underlying' influence for the most part. Pluto is a powerful player in my chart as well, more so if you use modern rulerships. I absolutely notice my Pluto aspects in my natal chart, but I don't always notice the transits, but in my view that's because they need to be taken into context with other forecasting methods.
That's why I chose that passage I quoted. Note the use of the 'will': "Pluto conjunct the Moon will bring up intense psychological issues from deep in the soul, which will lead to a complete transformation of the emotional life"

Not may bring up intense psychological isssues, or "if secondary progressions coincide with this period of time, Pluto may bring up...". It's the fatalistic, 'will', that I'm arguing against. It is common in modern astrology to suggest that the outer planets WILL be felt, so, if one does not feel them, it's understandable why you'd be tempted to abandon them.

Yuriy wrote: Well, obviously it's too far from angles now but if you have those favorite modern astrologer's pattern in chart, like "handle of the bucket" or
"empty leg of t-square" in your 4th quadrant (1st-4th houses) than you might have fun
I've also experienced transiting Uranus crossing my IC when emigrated, changed country and residence.

Good point. In February 2009 it was conjunct a focal planet in my Kite formation and at the same time trined Venus, ruler of my descendant which is in another Kite formation (I've a very tight chart with nearly everything in grand trines and mystic rectangles and kites). My sex life remained unimproved and totally unaffected. However in January 2008 it oppositioned Mars ruler of my ascendant, and ALSO in a Kite pattern and that one did relate to sex. Namely that I stopped having any after a really painful breakup. I guess I'm not due any "great sex" transits any time soon

EDIT
Just realised that Mars was likely relevant here because by profections it was the lord of the descendant. Also my Mars in my chart is succeedent approaching being cadent, is out of sect and has only bound dignity.
Unfortunately at the very same time as this Pluto opposition, I also had a Mars return, so Mars returned to 29 Gemini, Mars being ruler of my ascendant in my nativity and profected ruler of the descendant.
All in all I think I trust those profections more, but perhaps Pluto adds 'confirmation' to it.

Note the use of the 'will': "Pluto conjunct the Moon will bring up intense psychological issues from deep in the soul, which will lead to a complete transformation of the emotional life"

Rather than the 'will' issue it is rather the will this and that that put me off. Especially the outer planets were said to bring an enormous transformation in ones life (one of the first books I read was Arroyo's - 'Astrology Karma and Transformation (AKT)). While sometimes the planets corresponded with certain feelings, the 'promised' transformation never occurred. One might say that it depends on the individual himself to act and bring about the transformation. Of course, I agree with that point but the description of the effects in books don't usually point in that way. Moreover, why wait till a planet is there if you want some change?

The way I think I notice is a temporary change. I compare it with squeezing a 'stress ball'. It changes shape when it's squeezed but as soon one lets loose, it takes its original (like the radix?) shape again.

Another point about the use of the word 'will' is that to a certain extent a planet/point must be effective. I also think that this should be even when there's no special direction, progression or whatever is going on. It should then just be weaker. If a planet/point never turns out to be noticeable, then why use it? This feeling of doubt I have not only with modern things like the asteroids or midpoints but also with the Lunar Node.

It's difficult to find a balance in this not-always-working vs. actual-ineffectiveness. Much might be a combination of theoretical preference and personal experiences which confirm this preference, but I don't feel comfortable with this explanation.

Paul wrote: Good point. In February 2009 it was conjunct a focal planet in my Kite formation and at the same time trined Venus, ruler of my descendant which is in another Kite formation (I've a very tight chart with nearly everything in grand trines and mystic rectangles and kites). My sex life remained unimproved and totally unaffected. However in January 2008 it oppositioned Mars ruler of my ascendant, and ALSO in a Kite pattern and that one did relate to sex. Namely that I stopped having any after a really painful breakup. I guess I'm not due any "great sex" transits any time soon

EDIT
Just realised that Mars was likely relevant here because by profections it was the lord of the descendant. Also my Mars in my chart is succeedent approaching being cadent, is out of sect and has only bound dignity.
Unfortunately at the very same time as this Pluto opposition, I also had a Mars return, so Mars returned to 29 Gemini, Mars being ruler of my ascendant in my nativity and profected ruler of the descendant.
All in all I think I trust those profections more, but perhaps Pluto adds 'confirmation' to it.

Personally I'm disappointed with outer planets trine/sextile aspects to natal points. Mostly conjunction/opposition/square influences more or less obvious.
I've very close trine Venus-Uranus in natal and about 7 years ago was Uranus transiting in trine to my natal Venus. I was expecting something bizarre or exciting in career or relationship, but that period of time actually was most boring and stagnating...
May be because Saturn's firdaria just started at the same time.

I think that astrologers of all types expect transits or indeed directions or whatever= distinct events ,i.e Saturn transits my moon and my mother gets jailed etc. I think it is partly the fault of cookbooks written by ancients and moderns alike and partly our own fault that we astrologers like the idea of the experience of something rather than the absence of it.

What is scary about that perspective, though, is that the reverse ought also to be true :if one has no transits, no progressions, no directions for a few days/hours/minutes etc and presumably one will cease to exist completely for that time..................................? I


My findings on transits are that 1) one must always start from the nature of the natal chart and how the life has integrated that. I used to work all hours god sent and never noticed individual Saturn transits. Since I have had a less pressing work role though I find I do notice them - indeed a Saturn transit prior to a holiday will go unnoticed but when I go on the holiday chances are I'll meet Saturn through some form of difficulty because the self imposed ( i.e integrated into daily life) restriction is lifted one gets an external event instead. Then it is bck to work and Saturn seems to disappear again!

Having said that hard Uranus transits have always produced distinct events, of the nature of the planet being transited, to the day for me as far back as I can track. [Obviously I do Saturn without thinking about it but need a bit of a reminder to go all Uranian].

On the other hand I've found Neptune isn't conducive to events at all in my chart. But boy does it operate. Indeed it seems it is conducive to the absence of any concrete events no matter how hard I might try to create them. In my experience if your life is directionless and everything you initiate turns to dust and you stay right where you are - then welcome to the domain of Neptune. [ No doubt those who love and integrate Neptune will say they had wondrous visions]

As for Pluto, I said earlier in the thread I've only seen it operating once or twice in my chart to my moon (and the physical sensation then was quite different to the other planets- sheer primal terror I suppose I would describe it as) but it had rarely got the the stage to itself so far.

In fact I just looked at the history and I had no hard pluto transits from 1973-1986 but then really no time without them from 1986 to 2000 - so they sort of rolled into everything else that was evolving during that time - yet when I look at the list I can see the influence quite clearly- it just wasn't down to short term events - more to long term relationship and business devlopments . After that I had no more pluto transits again for the last 10 years. If I make it through the next decade though I'll come back and tell you all about it.....

So:
Yes absolutely to experience of transits by all of the planets, including Pluto, even without any progressions etc

No to that meaning events in every case. But yes to the possibility that some transits can produce those.

Yes to understanding which planets the native's life resonates to and which he/she is missing out on.

No to thinking you can just pick up a book and look up the meaning and Bob's your uncle. Unless of course you really have an uncle called Bob. If so, well then, I rest my case.

So we have an awful lot of choices that may or may not happen. I don't see how this is different from using the Magic 8-Ball.

A transit in your third house may produce some bad news (if everything else fails, turn on the TV news), or something will happen to your brother or sister (it is handy if you have more than one) or your neighbors (esp. if you live in a big apartment house), or it is possible you will have an unpleasant short trip (to your workplace since you are not going anywhere else that day).

So at the end of the day you conclude you didn't have any problems commuting to work, you call your sister and brother, and all of your neighbors. Nothing happened. Weird. So many people and nothing happened. Except your sister almost had a car accident. Is this it? Or not? Or maybe you should also consider the turned houses? Nah, guess not. *Sigh* I guess this is one of them empty transits.