usage of outer planets in horary

1
I know that you are only supposed to use the traditional planetary rulers in horary, but if one of the significators is conjunct an outer planet, do you assign any meaning to that? For instance if cancer is on the ascendent and the moon is conjunct pluto? Or are any aspects to outer planets considered? Just curious...

2
Hi Portoquinn,

Generally, I do not make use of the outer planets in horary. However, there are times when they put themselves in a position that begs attention. I did a horary for someone this morning where the Moon and Pluto were within 4 minutes of conjuncting and were on the 7th house cusp. Since this was a relationship question, I could not ignore it. The next aspect the Moon was to make was to Mars. I wouldn't base my answer on an outer planet but would look to the added information it might give. If an outer planet is on an angle or is in close aspect to a significator, I will give it consideration.
The difficulty I do have is that I don't feel I have the same understanding of the outer planets as I do of the traditional planets, particularly as they might relate to horary. We don't have the thousands of years of tradition to fall back on when it comes to the outer planets. I find that most of the books written about the outer planets are closely tied in with giving them rulerships, which I don't accept. That's not to say that there aren't some very good books out there. Liz Greene's book on Neptune, for example, is excellent. But I am a bit wary of a lack of deeper understanding when it comes to the outer planets. I know what I have been taught and I know what the books say but I still feel somewhat lacking in my knowledge in this area.

Cheers
Sue

3
I believe the only thing you can do really wrong with the outer planets is giving they rulership over the signs ! I saw in the internet an horary astrology using Pluto as lord of an Scorpio AC, I almost fell to the floor, which type of horary astrologer would do that ?

As Sue says, The Big Slow Three in Angles have a lot of power... and when they are aspecting it can add meaning... for example, in disease charts, always look for an aspect between the Lord of AC and Neptune ! People are always scared of Pluto, but Neptune dissolves the body...

Maurice Mccann allows the Outer Planets to do collection (and maybe translation ? - sometimes Uranus can be faster than Jupiter and SAturn...) and John Frawley says something about how it would be strange if an astrologer from australy refuse to use Outer Planets based only that they were not discovered in a time australy itself hasnt been discovered

Y (sorry the bad english, hehehe)

4
I would have to agree with what has been said above. If an outer planet is prominent in the horary - conjunct an angle or a significator - i would include it in the interpretation.

I don't personally think it is difficult to get to grips with the core meanings of these planets. Uranus: shock, upheaval, separation, sudden and unexpected events. Neptune: confusion, disappointment, disillusionment, deception (or self-deception). Pluto: complete loss, "death" of a person, condition or state of affairs.

From my own experience and observation, all three outer planets operate as "malefics:" they usually indicate something shocking, disappointing, or even tragic. The outer planets bring us experiences we would never consciously choose for ourselves. Often there is the feeling of having the rug pulled from under our feet.

5
yuzuru said:
I saw in the internet an horary astrology using Pluto as lord of an Scorpio AC, I almost fell to the floor, which type of horary astrologer would do that ?
You?d be surprised. It is far more common than you think. Some very well known and successful astrologers work this way.

kurgal said:
I don't personally think it is difficult to get to grips with the core meanings of these planets. Uranus: shock, upheaval, separation, sudden and unexpected events. Neptune: confusion, disappointment, disillusionment, deception (or self-deception). Pluto: complete loss, "death" of a person, condition or state of affairs.
Yes, but these are all just ?cookbook? words that most of us were taught. What do they really mean? When I think of Saturn, for example, I have a great deal of information at hand that contributes to my understanding of Saturn. I know that it rules Aquarius by day and Capricorn by night. Its nature is cold and dry and it rules the Air triplicity by day. It is of the melancholic temperament. It is exalted in Libra and in its detriment in Aries, etc., etc. Because of this information and other information like it, I can understand why Saturn can mean delays or restrictions, or why it rules undertakers or miners or hemlock or nightshade. Marsilio Ficino, for example, bases his understanding of Saturn largely on the fact that it is of the melancholic temperament. He also pays a great deal of attention to the fact that it is exalted in Libra, which is ruled by Venus and so draws down the energies of Venus with the use of talismans to combat the negativity of too much Saturn. I can do this with all of the traditional planets. But how do we really understand the outers? How do we understand that Uranus means separation other than we have all probably seen it in charts we have done or that it has become the commonly accepted description? I don't see too many descriptions of Uranus (if any) that don't also include Aquarius, confusing the issue somewhat. Same with Neptune/Pisces and Pluto/Scorpio. What is the true nature of the outer planets and how do we know it?

6
Yes, I have to agree, how do we know what they really mean? Is this where the intuitive part of your nature just has to come in? I have seen many charts with neptune as the dominant theme, and seen alot of deception, glamour and wierdness going on, as when I see pluto as a theme there seems to be alot of paranoia, intensity, and general "scorpio" themes... So what do you do, I say include them if they're prominent, and if not, exclude? It's very hard to ignore an exact conjunction to anything... and to me, especially pluto, which always seems so powerfull. Just me I guess.

8
Yes, it's pretty hard to argue with a planet on the ascendant. One of my closest friends has Neptune on her ascendant. I love her dearly but, having Saturn close to my ascendent, sometimes I just wanna slap her and tell her to get her act together. :D Whenever we go to conferences (she is an astrologer) she always wants me to decide which lectures she should go to.

I'm certainly not arguing against the outer planets. I just find it more difficut to get a deeper understanding of them. It's probably a structure thing since I have a very strong Saturn influence in my chart. I know how the traditional planets fit into the scheme of things but with the outers I'm not so sure.

9
Well, does saturn on your ascendent make you come across very serious and stern? Just asking....I actually have a stellium conjunct my ascendent, mercury, pluto, and uranus. Just that is confusing in itself! I agree with you about the outer planets, they are very hard to interpret, if you include them in horary....it can get very confusing! Maybe that's why they shouldn't be included at all. I just can't ignore it when one of the significators is conjunct say, neptune, or pluto, or neptune or pluto is conjunct an angle. it must mean something....too obvious to ignore. So I suppose we just give them the most agreed upon meanings...and go from there? another question though....if for instance, pisces is on the ic, I know we look at jupiter, but what if neptune is making significant aspects to the moon, or to the ruler of the ascendent? Should it be ignored? I think not, but I will gladly listen to every opinion. My favorite thing about astrology is (as you all may know) the feeling of insight you suddenly get when you study a chart...all of a sudden it all starts to come together, and you don't really know if it's from the chart, or from inside yourself...right?

10
[quote="Sue"]Yes, but these are all just ?cookbook? words that most of us were taught. What do they really mean?[quote]

Well, yes I suppose they are "cookbook" words. That of course does not detract from their validity or usefulness in interpretations. I think their meaning is clear. I don't think concepts such as "separation" and "disappointment" (for example) are inherently any more difficult to understand or apply than, say, "restriction" and "delay" (the two "cookbook" interpretations of Saturn you mention).

It seems to me that what you are really uncomfortable with, is the basis of key words such as these. ...the "why?" Where do these meanings come from?

I think that is a good point. Of course, we do not have the same amount of background or information on the outer planets as we do the inner planets. We have known about the traditional planets for thousands of years, whereas the discovery of the three outer planets is still relatively recent. We are still learning about them. (And who is to say that we even know everything there is to know about the inner/traditional planets?)

However, I do think there is some excellent astrological literature about the outer planets. I was extremely impressed with Liz Green's explanation of the outer planets in her book "The Outer Planets and their Cycles." However, that might just be me, and other astrologers may disagree with her insights and interpretations.

11
Sue wrote:I'm certainly not arguing against the outer planets. I just find it more difficut to get a deeper understanding of them. It's probably a structure thing since I have a very strong Saturn influence in my chart. I know how the traditional planets fit into the scheme of things but with the outers I'm not so sure.

This reminds me of something else about the outer planets. This might just be my own feeling about them...but I strongly feel they are "anti-form" and "anti-structure." They smash apart all the structures we have built, what we think we can safely rely and depend upon. That is why I believe they are inherently destructive - not inherently "spiritual," as some astrologers do.

Of course, they can provoke spiritual growth. How else is one to cope with the experience: "everything that I thought I understood and that was safe in my life, is now gone?"