3
Best Astrologer with respect to Practice or Book writing?

Ptolemy Work Tetrabiblos appears to be a compilation, especially Book III and IV.

Anyway, i am not that familiar with Western writers. I can only tell with reference to my part of world and Muslims. List is in order of reputation.

Current Astrologer-----None.

Past Astrologer---------

Abu Rehan Al Bairuni--- with respect to practice (limited practice). He was commanded various times to demonstrate his horary prowess in the full Royal Court.

Omar Khayyam---with repsect to practice (limited). A mathematician and of Rubayat fame.

Khawaja Naseer-ud-din Tusi---with repsect to knowledge. A minister to Halaku Khan (mongol conquerer).

Masha'Allah--With respect to practice and books.
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/

4
For both categories it is probably impossible to say ? astrologers are not always directly comparable because of differing styles and types of knowledge. Historically, for technical expertise I would rank Kepler as well as Ptolemy as amongst the best. It would be better to aim for a list of greats, who were all admirable in their own way. But even such a list would have to be quite comprehensive, and at the very least would have to include Valens, Dorotheus, Masha?allah, Bonatti, Cardan, Gauricus, Culpeper, Lilly, Morin (oh, it?s endless really).

Amongst the living, all I would say is be wary of anyone who claims to the best ? such a person is almost certainly suffering from delusions. Rob Hand is not only one of the world?s best known astrologers, but he has consistently contributed his understanding over a long period of time. He is known for his hard work and generosity to other astrologers, and you don?t see him marketing himself in a guru-type fashion, all of which marks him out as deserving a lot of respect. I also like the fact that he does not demand blind adherence to what he says, and remains open to the growth of his own understanding. So I think Rob Hand could legitimately be described as having one of the best, if not the best reputation amongst living astrologers. I?m not saying I agree with him on everything, but yes, I?d give him my vote.

According to this site though, its Elbert Wade: http://www.elbertwade.com/page9.html

5
Good advice Deb. Someone who claims to be the best,
is showing his insecurity and inferiority of his capacities.
There are many charlatans who claim to be the best in
the world, however there are the so called gurus that you
mention, that are geniunely more developed than most of
us, nevertheless they seem a little deluded in thinking they
are the best, this makes me think of the excessive ego of a
Buddha or Jesus.

6
Besides Robert Hand, I can think of John Frawley, Noel Tyl ?,
and Liz Greene. I think they are all fine, however I'm not sure
about Noel Tyl. I would like to know what traditional astrologers
think of him.

7
I've been learning most of my astrology from Skyscript since 2004 and for me Deb is the astrologer I admire and respect most. My vote for the best living astrologers will also go to Tom and those learned and experienced members of this forum with their valuable contributions.

8
I admire Skyscript as well. Deb is indeed a very good astrologer.
Tom seems very good as well. However to call them the best living astrologers may be a little hyperbolic.

9
Tis a sad things to be raised so high and then dropped so quickly. Don?t get the business card changed yet Tom. (Though, strictly speaking, all experienced members of this forum could now get away with putting ?reputed to be ?? if they pretended they didn?t see the second post).

Thanks for the sentiment Gem (but we already knew that 8) )

10
The best astrologer alive is Andre Barbault or Robert Zoller.
Robert Hand is second best to me now, so don't worry Deb
you are not the only one to be dropped.

Oh, I'm going to tell everyone I'm the greatest astroger in
the world. No, it was just a joke.

11
I think they are all fine, however I'm not sure about Noel Tyl. I would like to know what traditional astrologers think of him.
I don't know much about Liz Greene except that the type of astrology she does holds no interest for me. I studied with Noel, however. Tyl has some very good points. He tirelessly promotes astrology to the benefit of all of us. He is prolific, and while being prolific is not necesarily the same as being good, his books wouldn't sell if many people did not find value in them.

Astrologically his strongest point in my view is the fact that he utilizes and teaches a system. His students look at a chart and know what to do with it. This is one of the biggest hurdles for beginners, and he provides the necesary instructions. Like most modern astrologers his system is slanted heavily towards the use of aspects, but even this is done somewhat judiciously. He doesn't bother so much with soft aspects and he is mostly interested in hard aspects that between Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto and the inner planets. Again this is part of his system, and an interested student can look at what he's offering and make his or her own decision about it.

Like all moderns Tyl devotes nearly all of his time to natal astrology and his readings emphasize the outer planets (Plus Saturn) In my opinion he does this at the expense of more creative and important uses of the inner planets. Mercury is important, guys. But these objections are typical criticisms by a traditionalist of the modern approach. If a student is more disposed toward modern astrology than traditional, Noel's system is a good way to go. And although some have been critical of his personal style, it should be remembered that he has done a great deal to promote astrology, and none of us can please everybody.

Tom