does anyone have a legitimate, serious horary question?

tikana

Well-known member
Kai

sorry for sticking my nose in here.
I had seen lord of the hour not matching asce when the question is not original. The situation is cooling down, asce matches the degree of natal deg somewhere, random question, out of curiosity, "I WONDER...," out of boredom, none of your business, with an unfocused question, too many ifs in the question, etc.

I usually test charts from moon's and merc's locations and past lunar aspect just to see what led the question to begin with.

T
 

Yuri

Well-known member
This isn't really answering my question.
It really all boils down to what it means to be radical, and I disagree that Lilly considered hour lord to be the first indicator of an appropriate question. Reading his delineations, one would almost get the feeling that it was appropriate physical description of the querent since this is something he does in almost every example.

What was your question about then?
Explain then.
You asked: "What are your thoughts on the charts by Lilly that don't have hour/ascendant agreement?"
I wrote my thoughts - inappropriate questons. (The discussion is about that, or don't I understand something ???)

You wrote you were disagree.
Textually - first. See Lilly's "Guide for astrologers" - only 1.hour ruler, 2.asc degrees. Nothing else. Not to judge !!! And his CA - the firstly, he says rightly FIRSTLY about the HR (in the chapter about not radical charts). See the book. Yuri.
 
Last edited:

Yuri

Well-known member
How is the hour ruler derived? I have searched and searched and only found calculators.


The HR must be:
1. of the same triplicity that the sign ascending (hr Jup, asc in Leo - fire)
or:
2. the same planet (hr Mar, asc in Sco)
or:
3. of the same nature that the 1th ruler (hr Sat, Asc in Virgo - both significators are cold and dry). Yuri.
 

tikana

Well-known member
Yuri
she is asking how the lords of the hours theory was created.
It is too complicated to explain so i m not explaining

T
 

Yuri

Well-known member
Yuri
she is asking how the lords of the hours theory was created.
It is too complicated to explain so i m not explaining

T

A-ah, understand ...
That's an another matter.
I think the querent's state of mind (the Hour Ruler) must be in according with a physical state (Asc). ???????

Not accurately; rather external infuences in accordance with internal.
It's not been explained neither Lilly nor somebody else... (But I think by that reasons - external and internal "waves" must be in harmony when asking).
 
Last edited:

Yuri

Well-known member
Many astrologers are ignoring the HR, I'd like to add.
John Frawly, for example. He is considering non-radicalness as deriving from astrologer's fears to be killed and eaten by the king.

My experience says otherwise. The most majority (90%) of people i said this (their not focusing on right things) recognized that.
 
Last edited:

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Hi Yuri,

You say you shared your thoughts that they were unreasonable questions, but the questions I cited were life-or-death scenarios. Certainly they are understandable questions to ask, so the idea that a chart without an hour lord agreement shows a question that is inappropriate is clearly incorrect. Furthermore, I gave an example of a chart that did have hour-lord agreement, but the delineation of the chart itself showed that what the querent asked about was not the most significant question he should be asking.

Your ideas about hour lord agreement showing radicality are defeated by the very authority you are quoting it from. This is all too common.

Yuri said:
Textually - first. See Lilly's "Guide for astrologers" - only 1.hour ruler, 2.asc degrees. Nothing else. Not to judge !!! And his CA - the firstly, he says rightly FIRSTLY about the HR (in the chapter about not radical charts).

I'm assuming you're discussing the aphorisms Lilly shares on pg 298. He certainly says more about charts than just to check the ascendant and the hour lord as there are a full 43 aphorisms he gives in that section. I suppose assuming they are numbered in order of importance is a valid interpretation of the list, but if that is so, why does Lilly break his first rule over and over again?

Just to be clear. You're claiming Lilly as your source for your use of the hour lord/ascendant agreement theory, but Lilly doesn't actually use it in practice.

tikana said:
yeah i know but she is asking about the actual theory

It's probably best to let duenderoja come back and clarify her question. Asking how something is derived is a bit of an awkward way to ask about the theory behind the agreement technique. But, who knows.
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
The only thing I am asking is "how do I know what the ruler of the hour is".

Excellent.

There are three different methods; hard, easy, so easy it's stupid.

The hard method is that you'd have to take the times of local sunrise and sunset, figure out how many minutes is between those two events and divide by 12. Each 1/12 section of that time is a planetary hour. You would do the same thing with that sunset and the subsequent sunrise to get the nighttime hours. This is hard, requires math, and requires knowledge of local sunrise/set times for various locations on the earth. Annoying.

The so easy its stupid method is where you get an astrological program to tell you what the hour lord is. Most display it somewhere, but probably only in classical settings.

The easy method, which is the one I encourage most everyone to use (especially since astro.com does not display hour lords) involves the Sun's position in Placidius charts. By taking a chart and casting it into Placidius, we can determine the planetary hour by counting the half-houses the Sun has moved through.

Here is an example of this moment from my location:


We already see that my program is saying it's the hour of Mars (the super easy way ;)), but we'll ignore that for now.

So, we see the Sun is located down in the fourth house. We start from the Ascendant and count half-houses in a clockwise motion (following diurnal motion), so from the Ascendant to the twelfth house to the eleventh, etc. So, from the Ascendant to the cusp of the twelfth house is 2 hours. From the cusp of the twelfth to the eleventh is another 2 hours, and so on and so forth until we get to the cusp of the fifth house. The Sun's position on the cusp of the fifth house (exactly!) marks the beginning of the 17th planetary hour of Monday.

Note here that beginning with the Ascendant starts us with 1 hour, so the twelfth house cusp is actually the beginning of the third hour, the eleventh cusp is the beginning of the fifth hour, etc.

Now we have to figure out which half of the fourth house the Sun is in. Is it's position closer to 14° Capricorn (cusp of the fourth)? Or is it closer to 16° Aquarius (cusp of the fifth)? The Sun at 29° is 15° away from 14° Capricorn and 17° away from 16° Aquarius. So, since the Sun has crossed a half-house marker, it's the 18th planetary hour on Monday.

With this in mind, you just have to identify the hour lord. The first step is to identify the ruler of the day, this is a chart for Monday (remember, planetary days begin at sunrise, not midnight), so the ruler of the day is the Moon. The ruler of the day gets the first hour of that day, and the hours go in this order: Saturn --> Jupiter --> Mars --> Sun --> Venus --> Mercury --> Moon --> Saturn.

So, we start from the Moon and go down this order 18 places to arrive at the correct hour lord: 1) Moon 2) Saturn 3) Jupiter 4) Mars 5) Sun 6) Venus 7) Mercury 8) Moon 9) Saturn 10) Jupiter 11) Mars 12) Sun 13) Venus 14) Mercury 15) Moon 16) Saturn 17) Jupiter 18) Mars.

And that's that.

This also works in Regio houses, but it isn't as accurate, so your hours could be off by a bit if you're using Regio. Not really a problem unless the sun is close to a cusp or close to half way.
 

Cap

Well-known member
Originally Posted by Yuri
Textually - first. See Lilly's "Guide for astrologers" - only 1.hour ruler, 2.asc degrees. Nothing else. Not to judge !!! And his CA - the firstly, he says rightly FIRSTLY about the HR (in the chapter about not radical charts).

I'm assuming you're discussing the aphorisms Lilly shares on pg 298. He certainly says more about charts than just to check the ascendant and the hour lord as there are a full 43 aphorisms he gives in that section. I suppose assuming they are numbered in order of importance is a valid interpretation of the list, but if that is so, why does Lilly break his first rule over and over again?

Just to be clear. You're claiming Lilly as your source for your use of the hour lord/ascendant agreement theory, but Lilly doesn't actually use it in practice.

This is absolutely true.

http://beachastrologer.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-inconsiderate-mr-lilly.html
 

Yuri

Well-known member
I'm assuming you're discussing the aphorisms Lilly shares on pg 298. He certainly says more about charts than just to check the ascendant and the hour lord as there are a full 43 aphorisms he gives in that section. I suppose assuming they are numbered in order of importance is a valid interpretation of the list, but if that is so, why does Lilly break his first rule over and over again?


No, not 298, p.121 (vol.1)

CA, vol.1 (original Text), p.121
1649 printed by John Macock.

Lilly:
"Considerations before judgements.
All the Ancients that have wrote of Questions, doe give warning to the Astrologer, that before he deliver judgement he well consider whether the Figure is radical and capable of judgement, the Question then shall be taken for radicall, or fit to be judged, when as the Lord of the hour at the time of proposing the Question, and erecting the Figure, and the Lord of the Ascendat or first House, are of one Triplicity, or be one, or of the same nature.
As for example, ....."

Why 43?
I found just about 10 (hr,asc deg, Moon VOC, Sat in th 7th...).


Just to be clear. You're claiming Lilly as your source for your use of the hour lord/ascendant agreement theory, but Lilly doesn't actually use it in practice.

I don't know this for sure.
The problem I encountered with Lilly's examples was not to cast accurate charts - time and significators' positions did not accord. So, I can't conclude if he really ignored the hr and other points.
Maybe, they accord in modern publications? I didn't read them.
But I assume his ignoring. (??? - it's not understandable why he wrote about the hr then ??? And in both books ??? And set the hr on the first place ???)


You say you shared your thoughts that they were unreasonable questions, but the questions I cited were life-or-death scenarios. Certainly they are understandable questions to ask, so the idea that a chart without an hour lord agreement shows a question that is inappropriate is clearly incorrect. Furthermore, I gave an example of a chart that did have hour-lord agreement, but the delineation of the chart itself showed that what the querent asked about was not the most significant question he should be asking.


These are just your own assessments.
They can turn out to be incorrect.
But may be correct. Certainly, i need to look carefully at every particular case (we all are "students"), and yes, I wrote, 10% of my charts were non-r by hr, but were important, in my opinion (for additional information i had to see natal and directions in those cases).
 
Last edited:

Yuri

Well-known member
Excellent.

There are three different methods; hard, easy, so easy it's stupid.


Here are calculations. (I use Zet9Lite, there are all the calculations).

19.01.15, 23.29 gmt-6
32.56n 96.43 w
What is the HR?

Sunrise 7.33
Hour duration is 50.77 min (counted as you described time between sunrise and subsenset 17.41 is divided by 12 ((17.41-7.33)/12)
Hour duration is 50.77 min.
7.33 Moo
8.23 Sat
9.14 Jup
10.05 Mar
10.56 Sun
11.46 Ven
12.37 Mer
13.28 Moo
14.19 Sat
15.10 Jup
16..00 Mar
16.51 Sun
17.42 Ven
18.51 Mer
20.00 Moo
21.09 Sat
22.19 Jup
23.28 Mar - NOW.
I use Zet9Lite, there are all the calculations.
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
I don't know this for sure.
The problem I encountered with Lilly's examples was not to cast accurate charts - time and significators' positions did not accord. So, I can't conclude if he really ignored the hr and other points.
Maybe, they accord in modern publications? I didn't read them.
But I assume his ignoring. (??? - it's not understandable why he wrote about the hr then ??? And in both books ??? And set the hr on the first place ???)

The "correct" calculations of the charts aren't really important. We know the hour lord of the charts because Lilly writes them in the middle of most of his charts so we know he knew what they were.

We shouldn't be so caught up in obtaining the "real" positions, this isn't going to teach us anything. What is going to teach us is following along with what Lilly was seeing.

No, not 298, p.121 (vol.1)

CA, vol.1 (original Text), p.121
1649 printed by John Macock.

Book 2 is where all of the good stuff is.

Cap,

Thanks for the blog backup. The list he provides is very useful. Unfortunately, he seems to completely miss the point of radicality. :/
 

Yuri

Well-known member
We shouldn't be so caught up in obtaining the "real" positions, this isn't going to teach us anything. What is going to teach us is following along with what Lilly was seeing.

You have a right...
I can't consider charts if I even don't know where the Asc really is...


The CA has many defects in its examples, not only non-accordance by hr.
So, this book really can be used only for general studies. I rely more on Frawley in my practice, his experience and competence.
But about hr - I personally use it, it's a very useful thing I consider...
And, here is a relevant theme and it's very practical by sense and argueable among astrogers. But, what i could share i shared, not more. I have no intention to argue for months or years about all this.
Nothing can add.
 
Last edited:
Top