25
pankajdubey

In effect, yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. But let's not get bogged down by the unlikelihood of that method. This is not a science here that can be tested and controlled against. Just try asking a 'test horary' kind of question and watch whilst it doesn't work or make sense. This is often repeated and repeated by wiser astrologers than I am.
If we accept that there's a logical premise that suggests that the astrologer who is casting the horoscope for the horary has a relationship with that horary and that the horary can communicate with the astrologer, as in with warnings against judgement and also if you accept that an astrologer should decide before hand whether that car horary is a 2nd or a 3rd house one etc. then there's no ILLOGICAL reason why you can't also suggest that the horary is relevant to the astrologer him/herself. That's all that's being said here. Let's not forget that William Lilly and Bonatti and all the others were still only astrologers, they were not gods and were not infallible. With tradition as their guiding post they themselves through observation wrote their rules that they saw worked time and again. Is it any different with Frawley and others who can deviate from the older traditions? In my view I think we should be equally sceptical of Lilly as we are of Frawley. Just as equally we should listen to what is being said there. Learning by our experiences and observations is surely an important and valid way to learn. Traditions are as they are because they are seen to work time and again, but when an experienced astrologer breaks from them we should at least consider that there is a reason for this - perhaps his relationship with the 'cosmos' is such that this 'communication' via horary is one that DOES work for him. THe only other acceptable argument is that Frawley is a fool, his understanding of reception is wrong and he therefore has been wrong and consistently wrong every single time he has done his horaries in the manner he does. One wonders then how a 'consistently wrong' horary astrologer manages to become consider a 'master horary astrologer'. I think we must accept, whether our 'cause and effect' brains like it or not, that there is a possibility that both methods MIGHT be right, depending on who is doing the interpreting.

This is divination here, not newtonian physiscs. The observer affecting the observed is relevant here.

26
I'd just stipulate though, in relatino to my last points, that whilst both methods MIGHT work, both methods DON'T work for every person. In otherwords it is better to decide what way reception is and stick to that way. I doubt that Deb for example could just now 'decide' to use the other method. Consistency is important and surely for anyone posting here it would be wiser, especially if still learning horary, to adopt the methods that tradition dictate which are the ones Deb uses and the ones that are most commonly used on this forum.

But its fully possible that Deb et al with ask the question at such a time that the significators would be such that they would answer the question accurately, but that Frawley would have asked the question at another time, one that the significators would ALSO be such that using his methods the answer would also be accurate.
Does this seem ridiculous to suggest? Of course not, it is actually the VERY basis for horary itself, the time that the question is posed is, for whatever reason, such that the answer to the question will be found.

27
Paul,

That is interesting...

Re: "But its fully possible that Deb et al with ask the question at such a time that the significators would be such that they would answer the question accurately, but that Frawley would have asked the question at another time, one that the significators would ALSO be such that using his methods the answer would also be accurate.
Does this seem ridiculous to suggest?"

And if the person asking the question has Frawley and Deb in a conference call, asking the question simultaneously to both? If they use conflicting, somewhat opposing methods but the same chart, how could both come to the right "conclusion"?

Just a question as you seemed (to me) to have posed a logical conundrum.

Peace

Atlantean

28
Yup, its a problem, but then so is asking Deb question and then tomorrow asking Frawley. We still have that problem that ultimately both horaries could give the wrong answer.

I mean realistically if this were to actually happen chances are that one or other of them would work on the horary, there is a relationship between the horary and astrologer, but are there relationships between the horary and a team of astrologers? I don't know, but even if we accept that Frawley and Deb both do the conference call and 'together' do up the horary, then it wouldn't take more than a handful of questions to see if which way the wind is blowing with the significators. I mean take the example of "is my car amazing", Frawley would use the second house, Deb might (I don't actually know) use the third house. It's still possible that the Lord 2 and Lord 3 are both, for example, debilitated. But if one is debilitated and one is exalted it should only take a few more questions to the client and another quick 'tour' around the horary to determine which one is the valid one. But even then we still don't have any 'empirical' way of telling which one is the 'right' sig to use and which is the 'wrong' one to use. Tomorrow the same question by another client may be asked to the Deb-Frawley Super Conference Call and find that the sigs are the other way. It's possible.
But then its just as possible to ring Deb, ask her, and then afterwards ring Frawley and ask him. We're still stuck with that problem. It's kind of a problem that's inherent in horary as opposed to inherent in which interpretation is the right one.

I mean we simply don't know, set up a conference call I say! It's an interesting proposition.

29
Gentlemen - you could probably only imagine what I would tell someone who did ring under those sorts of circumstances :)
But I think this has gone off at a tangent to the original purpose of the thread. The issue of reception has been more than adequately covered on this site lately, and when it gets personalised as one modern astrologer's approach or another modern astrologer's approach then the traditional treatment of the subject has gone wrong, and the discussion has definitely gone somewhere that I'm not keen to follow.
That's not to say that Paul's point of view is not valid and worth discussing - it is. But in a new thread and in such a way that it applies to all astrologers of all periods of time. You see (for the record) I don't accept that any of the techniques I teach are 'mine' and I'm not personally interested in techniques that others might claim are theirs. After nearly 25 years of studying astrology I am still learning from the works of traditional authorities - I have personally originated zilch in terms of new technique. (However, I'll not deny that I think I have learnt to put it together nicely).

Deb

30
Thanks for the recommendation Tara! I actually got a natal chart reading from a Vedic astrologer using the Systems Approach and was blown away. I'm actually looking to have a natal chart done by a good traditional Western Astrologer to compare readings. Suggestions from anyone would be greatly appreciated. **edit** Nevermind, came across a thread with recommended natal astrologers (Ben Dykes, etc..) :D

Also, I was just on lunch and went to my local bookstore and read a bit of Deb's article in the latest issue of Mountain Astrologer :D

32
Gsoler wrote:There is a huge different in the amount they charge, so they are not comparable. Chris Warnock's is an introductory course. It will give you the basics and you can take it from there by yourself afterwards. Frawley's is more comprehensive, lasting and much more costly.
I mistoook Warnock for Chris Brennan, I apologize. Brennan's course is basic and cheap I dont know about Warnock's. I apologize for my confusion.

34
Deb wrote: I have heard good things about all the astrology teachers mentioned in this thread and one highly rated name that hasn't been mentioned so far is Sue Ward. Google her course too.
I recommend sending a standard letter of enquiry to several, and then judge by what kind of response you get. If you feel comfortable with the response you get to your course enquiries, then hopefully you'll feel comfortable with the response you get to the course content enquiries.

Good luck,
Deb
I agree with this. Sue Ward!

Carol Wiggers?

36
Good morning, all. I'm new to the forum and happy to be here.

Been studying horary on and off on my own for several years and it's time for a teacher/tutor. I've been looking at Carol Wiggers' website and Sue Ward, Chris Warnock, et. al. I see there is a recommendation from Deb for Sue...anyone know about Carol Wiggers?

I've written to Carol and Sue for more info, but haven't received a reply yet.

Thanks,
Benji :D