Hello Ile,

while I find your analysis thorough and useful, unfortunately I must agree with the statement above in this page:

### wrote:Hi James,

I had his solar return book. It was beautiful, printed on quality paper. It smelled fantastic. I bought it used and it was still in perfect shape.

I became completely disgusted with it and its pomposity. I sold it - as had the person who owned it before me.

Some years ago, taken by enthusiasm after reading recensions of his work, I bought Ciro Discepolo's 3 books (on transits, on revolutions and on natal astrology) and found them disappointing.
About relocation and solar revolutions particularly, when you read one or certain pieces of the book it could seem very well descriptive of a situation (considering it backwards) but when it should serve as a guide to choose ex. where to put a badly dignified malefic you just find that it will be bad and bring misfortune (illness, disaster, trouble etc) wherever you "put" it.
I am not saying I expect malefics become benefics by magic (of the relocation), just saying it is something one already know so C.D. does not add much or rather that what he can actually add (the importance of ASC, MC and some other features) would not need to be written in 500 pages. (In my opinion, of course.)
Relocation as (I understand) he intends it and all his books reflect a modern approach so I think he is not to be considered a traditional(ist) astrologer in any way.

Iris

Hi Iris,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I do not defend Ciro in any instance
I just point out that some of his experience written down in his books, papers or website, is strikingly corresponding to the actual events of my life.

I'm the one who would be against using his semi-sextiles sesqui-qudrates and semi-squares alongside the Outer planets or with any planet in the first place

Also, I don't use relocated solar returns myself.
The example I gave above is just an exercise by my side, inspired by reading the story behind the event. I thought it would be interesting to share it with my traditional astrologers fellows.

On the other side, I must quote Mark because I can't say it better how I feel toward the debate of modern vs traditional astrology [it would maybe seems irrelevant but since we spoke about Ciro not being trad. astrologer per se]:

People who describe modern astrology as vague on delineation ignore schools like Tyl, Huber or the Uranians who all have definable techniques. I have never been one of those traditionalists that thinks modern astrology doesn't work. Its just not the kind of astrology that generally appeals to me or resonates with my consciousness.

For me personally abandoning modern rulerships was the crossing of the rubicon that transformed my understanding of astrology. It was like a light being turned on in my brain with charts finally starting to come to life and make sense. Studying with the Faculty of Astrological Studies had failed to do this for me. I put a lot of this down to trying to use modern or dual rulerships of signs. On the other hand traditional astrology reveals layer after layer of new riches the longer you study it [emphasis mine]

This is great quote. I my self do not think that modern astrology doesn't work, especially those who have well established and definable techniques, which are continuity and thoroughly applied.

This is why I do not neglect the experience of Ciro Discepolo in regard to predictive astrology. It is his experience that Jupiter in 3rd often brings good gifts in regard to the signification of 3rd, such as brothers, car, journeys, writing and etc. It would not always bring gifts, especially if Jupiter is of bad state in both charts [as we saw in the example above], but I tend not to neglect the experience of an experienced astrologer, whether he is modern, traditional, hindu or whatever is his orientation.

What I do when I see a man of knowledge and experience: I shut my mouth up and open my ears [or in case of writing - eyes] widely and just listen. This doesn't mean that I would go and apply the asteroids to my traditional approach just because someone else is doing good with them.
I would stick to my way, as I tried to do that in the analysis of the event above.

I'm aware that I'm rambling irrelevant of your post, but I want to make my self clear about Ciro