Skyscript Astrology Forum

Dear Forum,

As we know studying Lilly he frequently followed 'guidelines' of Al Biruni's orbs and aspects if I'm saying this correctly. In other words he varied from Al Biruni from time to time yet was somewhat close as I understand in reading Lilly in CAII.

However, if you remember those times when you were a younger horary artist? Long before the truth and the light of Traditionalism had taken you off the path of Perdition, you know when you comitted 'horary heresey' and walked in blasphemy with the Modernes and had so many misconcieved notions that many of your now aquainted icons of Traditionalism looked down their noses at you!

But I'm afraid I am sinner in horary from time to time as I'm Not worthy to evangelize Lilly's works effectively untill I have emersed myself fully in the gospel of CA I, II, III.

So will someone take away my error, my incompetence as I'm on this issue in 'Horary Purgatory' as I want this Neptunian confusion rid from my heart and memory.

1)But in two recent horarys the lord of the matter on one was in the; last degree of a sign as the lord of the matter while Luna was on the 1st degree of a sign that squared the lord of the matter. Speacifically, Luna was at 1 degree aquarius wjile jupiter was at 29 taurus. The Moon was the only aspect to Jupiter as Zeus was leaving it's sign. So even without orb or moiety at around 28 degrees away does Luna and Zeus perfect the square?

2) Another tradgic horary has it's lord being applied to at 21 degrees, and Not with any of Al Biruni's method or being in aspect; do they perfect as they are in the same sign? Because in my early studies stained with Moderne methods an author said '..if in the same sign they eventually perfect...'.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise Men trully know how little they know

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/star-rea ... ?oid=22904

In other words, many of you have noticed in CA that Lilly uses Al Buruni's orbs and moeity, yet Lilly said he did Not follow Al Buruni exactly or in all of his horarys as in:

http://astrologyfoundation.org.nz/2002/ ... f-aspects/

My question is from my early years of starting off as a total novice in horary, like most of you I'm sure started out reading the Modernes then your quest of Traditionalism became very important enough that most adapted totally Traditional methods.

But somewhere some Modernes have had a view that if a planet eventualy perfects with a planet before it leaves it's sign, no matter if it were a fast moving planet at 1 degree applying to a slow moving planet at 29 degrees, definitely Not in Orb or Moeity, that a matter can perfect if the two connect before the slow moving planet changes sign.

Does this hold true or is it another misconception from the Moderns who misunderstood Traditional authors?

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know