Recently we?ve had a number of mundane horaries reviewed in the forum. A couple, concerning the selection of the new Pope have proved to be unsuccessful.

Kien asks

?Do you think if give this chart to an experienced astrologer, a correct prediction could be made? Or that the chart is not relevant enough ??

Siraxi wrote:

?why would this question generate an invalid chart ? I was well intended, no hidden thoughts, I was really focused on the question and wanting to know the answer.?

And in her comment upon Amelia?s new horary ?who will win the UK election??, Sue wrote:

?I have my doubts about how valid these sorts of horaries are. With an issue like this, there are possibly many charts being drawn throughout Britain, asking the same thing. It is not a question of burning personal significance no matter how politically active one might be.?

Since a principle is being questioned that could end up being discussed all over the place simultaneously, let?s have your thoughts here on whether or not we can expect mundane horaries to be reliable. I?m more or less with Sue and would say no, as a rule, except for exceptions!

Kien,

In response to your question about whether an experienced horary astrologer would have done better, I?d say ?probably not, but most would have avoided the question in the first place?.

The reason (I believe) is because it takes a powerful investment of focus and emotional energy to generate a clear and reliable horary chart. We don?t notice that most of the time because the querent brings it to us and when we connect with their situation we become affected by their energy.

When there isn?t a personal involvement in the situation, it?s difficult for the astrologer to recognise a moment of true significance, no matter how sincere, curious or concerned they are. In his first consideration Bonatus writes "although the mind be moved to enquire, 'tis not enough unless the superior bodies sympathize therewith". Why should there be any sympathy towards someone who really has no direct involvement in the situation and asks about an issue that is not their own?

I don?t deny that with experience and training astrologers can develop all sorts of skills, and when they fully invest that energy into a focussed scrutiny of a mundane event, they can get in touch with something very meaningful and impressive. But it?s not a good idea to treat horary as something we can use at our own convenience. Even the masters were hit and miss when they applied horary to mundane situations.

Think about the experience John Frawley related in one of his interviews. (I?m recalling this from memory so someone correct me if I get any important details wrong). When he was first asked to make football predictions on Sky TV he did incredibly well. But as the weeks went on his results got less and less impressive and started to cause him embarrassment. He had the motivation and interest ? his reputation was on the line in the most public arena, but he ultimately decided that it wasn?t possible to call upon the techniques of horary in any sort of mechanical way. There?s a vital ingredient that is needed to make that horary capable of being someone?s saving grace.

Incidentally, my first attempt to gain a QHP diploma through a prediction submitted in advance was rejected on the grounds that it was a mundane question. I always felt a bit miffed by that because it proved it to be very accurate, but I was told that it broke a basic principle of horary so it couldn?t be considered a good example of its use. Actually, I still want to argue with somebody about that (!), but my stance on this can be summarised by the fact that when it comes to horary judgements that involve a direct consultation with someone who is upset or beset by a problem I feel completely confident in my ability to judge the chart correctly. When I apply horary to mundane judgements, I can?t help feeling ?lucky? when I get the judgement right!

Hi Deb

As I'm thinking over and over again about what you wrote, about the mundane horaries that I know, I think there is no definitive answer to this question, it's up to every one to decide, in each particular case.

Considering Bonatus' statement "although the mind be moved to enquire, 'tis not enough unless the superior bodies sympathize therewith" in connection with Kien's horary question, I'd say that the resulted chart was in sympathy it the superior bodies, since we noticed that relevant connection (Ratzinger's ASC conjunct the 9th cusp). The problem was with the question, which was not well-phrased and incapacitated any astrologer to answer it. There were 115 cardinals to choose from. Would Kien asked "Will Joseph Ratzinger become the new Pope?", the answer would have been easy to tell from the chart.
How would you treat a personal question like this: "With which one of the 115 girls of my college should I go to the prom ?".

That is a good point. You wouldn?t do it. You need to have a clearly established relationship between the quesited and the querent - and that may be a more essential principle than whether the querent is identifiably involved with the quesited.

I?ve seen a lot of horary astrologers come a cropper when they?ve judged horaries based upon a moment of connection with a collectively expressed question, such as something they?ve read in the papers or seen on TV, but I have to admit that I have seen some good judgements too. I stick to what I wrote earlier and I?m still generally wary, but I agree that every situation is unique and this chart was blighted from the start with a question that was too wide in scope.

Although i did post the UK election horary I wouldn't usually draw up and even less so post mundane horaries... so...I've been thinking about this all day and find that all i arrive at is more questions rather than answers...and here are my musings

Deb mentions sports predictions and there does seem to be no difference between mundane and sports etc. They are essentially the same type of question. So it is either ok for one or for neither of these. Or does it make a difference if the topic is essentially fun sports rather than political? And are astrologers not allowed any fun at all?

I also wondered if mundane horaries won't work does that mean mundane astrology in general shouldn't "work" unless the same criteria apply? Is there any difference between predicting a country will win the rugby world cup based on the team formation chart or based on a horary? I don't see that there really is. And I do believe that mundane astrology does work. (although there is always the problem that predicting a mundane event does nothing useful in itself- but that is a separate issue).

I tend to agree that for a mundane horary to work you have to be sufficiently involved ......
I would not cast a chart for a Bolivian matter for example- unless I was planning a trip there of course!!...... Nor for trivial - spur of the moment questions - (but that applies for any type of horary anyway)

Question is; how involved is "involved" ?- it can't just be involved in some indirect way as I tend to believe everything is interconnected. It has to be direct in some way.

Probably it also ought to be a situation where you can influence the result. I am not sure that helps in polling charts though, as technically everyone and no-one in particular affects the result. Similarly if you are a football supporter attending a match - your support may have some influence but alone it won't be siginificant.

Perhaps a mundane question posed really answers an underlying question for the querent- such as "will I be happy with/diavantaged by the outcome of the event?" So if you ask about the pope and you fall into a category of person that will be affected depening on whether the outcome is a conservative or liberal pope - then perhaps it is valid for that question rather than for who the winner is exactly.

So perhaps drawing up a mundane horary is valid for the individual but
if so posting it as it stands on a forum is probably not appropriate- the underlying question should be posted instead.

After all this I am inclining to the view that the charts may have some value for the individual, and in some cases be accurate predictions, but should not generally be put in the public domain.

I've been thinking about this particular question, and how it is asked. I would like to suggest that the universe may answer you properly but you may not have the information you need to understand the answer. for instance, Benedicts asc conjoined the 9th house of the Horary. Without the knowledge of the backgrounds of all known contenders how would you be able to discern who the chart is discussing? I would think in mundane matters you would get more from the horary chart if you have more information handy when you ask the question. For instance if your question had been will X be the next pope, you could get a more definitive answer.

I may be comepletely out of the ball park on this one, but it is something I've noticed in some of the charts i've done. because I was missing pertenent details, I mis-read the chart.

Granny

Is there any difference between predicting a country will win the rugby world cup based on the team formation chart or based on a horary? I don't see that there really is. And I do believe that mundane astrology does work.

I see a big difference between mundane horary (if there is such a thing) and an event chart of a mundane occurrence. If I wanted to know who would win the World Cup (something I am unlikely to want to know ) I would never ask a horary question but would draw up a chart for the commencement of the game. Anyone can do that and there would still only be one chart. The chart, if interpreted properly, should be able to tell you who will win.

I agree that mundane astrology 'works' but that it is separate from horary astrology. They require slightly different rules and interpretations. For example, I don't believe that a mundane chart can be 'invalid' in the same way that a horary chart can be. There are many people who would disagree with that though. I think mundane astrology can be powerful and it is something I am particularly interested in. I just don't see horary and mundane astrology as being successful when used in this way.

Was John using horary for his sports predictions or was he using event charts? My recollection is that he was using event charts, i.e. a chart for the commencement of the game. I vaguely remember a discussion from him about the ascendanat and whether to use the favourite or the home team. I don't actually remember clearly though.

If I wanted to know who would win the World Cup (something I am unlikely to want to know ) I would never ask a horary question but would draw up a chart for the commencement of the game.

I believe John Frawley is against this. I remember an example of an barbecue, if you are asked if it is going to rain, you dont draw an event chart, you do an horary, because it would be more reliable... I try to test event charts with soccer games, and sometimes I get it right, so I get a little courage and tried to compare horary and event charts: my horary chart said home team would win... my event chart said lose... of course the result was a match

I would like to suggest that the universe may answer you properly but you may not have the information you need to understand the answer.

I agree with that, mainly because of my experience with tarot and I Ching... the universe doesnt seens so interested in giving us a clear answer, but it seens to always give an extremely and annoyingly COMPLETE answer of all aspects involved, even if we dont have the elements to understand the chart.

What is the size of what we call mundane ? Is a country ? Vatican is a pretty small country ! The election of the pope doesnt really affect the planets life, because the man behind the Church will always think the same way as the church, the Vatican will not go into a war, etc... I think a question about Microsoft is more mundane than one about the Vatican !

"although the mind be moved to enquire, 'tis not enough unless the superior bodies sympathize therewith"

One reason I did so many event chart when I began horary was because I was terrified of choosing the wrong moment. "Are the Gods of astrology going to discover I am not asking with passion enough" ? Nowadays I think we all live in an astrological flux, and so most charts are radical, we dont have to sacrifice a cow to do it... when the question is wrong, the charts kinda of show this...

"although the mind be moved to enquire, 'tis not enough unless the superior bodies sympathize therewith".

It can be also remembered that Kien didnt ask the horary ! He saw it on the news and took the hour it was published as the hour of the horary, I think it would be more correct to use the moment he thought the question was important enought to be made. I used this process to aske my question about the popes death.

You can ask "but thousands of people can ask horary about the pope in several moments, they can`t all be true !"... well, this forum has some thousand views, and only two people did charts about the pope, each one in his own time...

One final thought: to me the diference between Mundane and horary is one of trade-off, similar to economics, or maybe of dualism wave-particule... If you use mundane, you got a lot of information, but you loose all predictability, you barely know WHEN things are goint to happen... if you are using mundane you can be pretty sure SOMETHING is going to happen, but you never know what, what you gain in predictability you loose in information, hehehe, does that make sense for anyone ? If dont, give me a breake, it is 5am, hehhehe.

Yuzuru
PS: We should also remember that it is confuse whetter or not we should use domification system in mundane astrology, if we use horary we are saying that it is ok using regiomontanus to explain this kinda of thing.

amelia wrote:Perhaps a mundane question posed really answers an underlying question for the querent- such as "will I be happy with/diavantaged by the outcome of the event?".

I really like this idea. In medicine, a doctor wouldn't order the patient to do a certain test or examination, unless its result might change or help the diagnostic or the treatement.
I think it's the same here: if the answer to my horary question doesn't change a thing in my current situation, in the decisions that I have to take or at least in my mind/emotional status, then the personal involvement is insufficient.
In the case of my question about the new Pope election, this must have happened. Except for my own ego, nothing would have changed in case of a good answer...

Going back to an earlier point about whether there is any essential difference in judging mundane events by horary or other techniques.

One major difference is that in mundane astrology you analyse a chart that is generated for a moment of accepted significance in that situation. In horary, the chart you are analysing only exists because you created it. The moment may have significance for you, but if your question or moment of selection is flawed, the chart has no other merit to make it worthy of serious attention.

I remember an example of an barbecue, if you are asked if it is going to rain, you dont draw an event chart, you do an horary, because it would be more reliable...

Yes, because that?s really a question about a personal situation that directly affects the querent: ?is it going to rain at my barbeque??

Hi Deb and all,

Such a learning experience for me to hear from diverse but interesting perspectives. Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts!

I agree that a mundane chart would be better than a mundane horary. But I also think that there is not necessary just one moment of true significance. I believe there are many moment of true significance, except that the one closer to the source would be more descriptive.

For example, in order to know the Big Ben in London, I can take a trip to the UK to see it myself. In that case I will have very good comprehension of it. I can also see the pictures of the tower without visiting it. Or I can hear the story from my friends who have visited it and gain some ideas of it. At each level further from the source, I get less and less precise information. However, it doesn?t mean the information I received is not relevant.

Therefore I agree with Deb that it is much easier to be confident with a one-to-one horary, because we received information at the source.

However for practical reasons, we can not always have the source information, similar to the fact that I can not afford a trip to the UK. In that case we have to rely on more derivative information, and in that sense I think it would require the astrologer more skills to be able to separate the husk and the grain.

I agree with Yuzuru that somehow we lose some of predictive value when we strive for the perfect source. But also I disagree with you Yuzuru when you say that in the Pope horary it would be more correct if I had drawn a chart for the moment I thought of the question (which was in fact one day later than the time of the article). That approach is true for a one-to-one horary, but in a mundane case, that chart would be further from the source than the chart of the online article. As Sue pointed out in Amelia?s horary about UK election, numerous charts would be drawn throughout Britain if everyone is taking that approach. The number of the newspaper/media that asking the questions would be less than the number of astrologers, I suppose.

I totally agree with Deb that we should not abuse horary, to use it at our own convenience. But that applies to both mundane horary as well as common horary.

Come back to the Pope chart I have posted. Siraxi, of the 115 possible candidates of course I did not question exactly who will be the person. I was only mean to ask where about in the world the new Pope will come from and I think that question is reasonable enough. The fact that I predicted Francis Arinze just because once I identified Africa, only him is a possible African candidate, according to general information.

I agree with Siraxi that the chart is descriptive enough. You have discovered the 9th house/natal Asc connection and I have discovered a serious flaw in my reasoning. When seeing Venus, the significator, locates in the south sector of the chart, I have concluded that the new Pope comes from the South. That is fundamentally wrong considering my question is where his home country is, not where he is currently living. Venus in Aries, the foreign place, but its home (in a day chart) is Libra, which is the IC or North sector. Hence Ratzinger?s home country is Germany, north from Italy, but he is a Church?s Curia: he has been residing in Vatican for a long time to serve the Church. That?s why Venus cnj. Sun in Aries, the center of power. And Vatican is the south from Germany, as Venus is in the south from its Libra home. I know Deb and Paral would not accept this kind of after-the-fact reasoning

There are questions about Siraxi?s and my charts regarding VOC Moon and late degree rising which invalidate the chart, and I really don?t know. I know astrological theory says so, but I always feel hesitant to do that, afraid that good examples would be missed if such charts are discarded. I would love to hear more of your personal experiences with that.

To Yuzuru
Since you do involve with the IChing, this might be of an interest. In an I Ching horary, if the last line (ie. the top line) of the hexagram is changed (which is similar to VOC Moon and late degree rising), it means the things have already happened, or already decided. But that doesn?t prevent making correct prediction and instead, such cases would be the easiest to predict because nothing is going to interfere with the course of the event, even God.
Sorry all for a bit off-topic, and apologize for writing too long, but there are many things to think about.

Regards,
Kien