The Question in Horary
- Thread starter Zarathu
- Start date
I believe if the question is frivolous, or intended to test the divinatory approach being applied, or is motivated by mere curiosity, the question is invalid and the Cosmos-which I believe is Intelligent in nature (and not a mechanical penny fortune-telling machine)-will not respond, and mere chance will then dictate the "answer" to such a question.
Further, I believe that the querent MUST have some DIRECT connection to/with, the subject of the question: for example, if someone has worked in the political campaign of a candidate for governor, I believe it is valid (and will likely obtain a response from the Intelligent Cosmos) for this person to ask about the outcome of the election; however, if someone who has no such direct connection with that campaign (or with the candidate) asks, "will X win this election?", I believe this is mere curiosity and that the question by this uninvolved querent, is invalid (and will not obtain a response from the Intelligent Cosmos) I believe what I have posted is a general divinatory principle and is applicable not only to horary/astro-divination methods, but to all other branches of the divinatory art as well, such as geomancy, Tarot, various cartomancy methods, and I Ching.
Further, I believe that the querent MUST have some DIRECT connection to/with, the subject of the question: for example, if someone has worked in the political campaign of a candidate for governor, I believe it is valid (and will likely obtain a response from the Intelligent Cosmos) for this person to ask about the outcome of the election; however, if someone who has no such direct connection with that campaign (or with the candidate) asks, "will X win this election?", I believe this is mere curiosity and that the question by this uninvolved querent, is invalid (and will not obtain a response from the Intelligent Cosmos) I believe what I have posted is a general divinatory principle and is applicable not only to horary/astro-divination methods, but to all other branches of the divinatory art as well, such as geomancy, Tarot, various cartomancy methods, and I Ching.
Who defines if the question is frivolous, and what definitions would we use to determine this?
All the books I have all say that if its important to the poster its not frivolous. We all know posters HERE who post the same question over and over again with slightly different phrasing, or even exactly the same. That is clearly frivolous.
But what about other questions?
All the books I have all say that if its important to the poster its not frivolous. We all know posters HERE who post the same question over and over again with slightly different phrasing, or even exactly the same. That is clearly frivolous.
But what about other questions?
BobZemco
Well-known member
Bonatti defines it very clearly.
It doesn't matter what I think.
The Rules are The Rules.
The first step in Horary is to receive the Question.
The second step is to cast the chart.
Step #3 is identifying the Hour Ruler.
Step #4 is using the Hour Ruler -- that you identified in Step #3 --- to determine if the chart is Radical.
A non-Radical Chart cannot be read.
Note that Strictures have nothing to do with whether or not a chart is Radical. Strictures are merely advisories and warnings to the astrologer to very carefully weigh all factors, as it relates to the Stricture.
Aside from that, it's easy to tell if a Question is frivolous.....just read the Chart.
Then you might want to consider throwing those books away, since they're not worth the paper they're printed on. That contradicts at least 7,000 years of Horary Doctrine.
The Querent is the least qualified to determine if a question is frivolous, if for no other reason than the Querent is biased/prejudiced.
In a Perfect World™ the Querent would consult with the astrologer. The astrologer would ask questions to both help the Querent identify exactly what it is they would like to know, and to determine if the Querent has the authority to ask the question in the first place.
And the reason is so the astrologer can assign the correct significators.
If a woman tells a man, "Go to the astrologer and see if I am pregnant," then the man is a proxy for the True Querent and you use the 1st House, but if a man asks simply because he suspects, then he still gets the 1st House -- since he is the True Querent -- but the woman is the 7th House.
Also, on the issue of having authority to even ask a question, many professional astrologer associations prohibit 3rd Party Questions, unless the persons involved have signed a written release form granting permission.
"I wanna know what my 'Ex' (whatever) is doing...."....fine, but if your "Ex" wanted you to know what they were doing, they would have called, faxed, texted or sent (via priority mail) a detailed itinerary, and since they haven't, then you'll have to call your "Ex" and ask them what they are doing, because you can't use Horary for that.
In the US and Canada, if you do an unauthorized 3rd Party Horary for Suzy Psycho or Willy Wife-Beater or Chester the Child-Molester and something happens, you as the astrologer are civilly liable.
Depending on the exact State or Province, you could be held criminally liable, too.
So, yeah, sure, to a Stalker, the question of where is my "Ex" and what are they doing (so they can hunt them down and stalk them) is probably important to them,..... but the question is still frivolous.
Like what?
One is not allowed to know things for the sake of knowing.
Deleted by moderator
You're entitled to know something, if, and only if, it has a substantial impact on you, and "substantial impact" is defined by the most rational person, not the least rational.
Last edited by a moderator:
Examples of a frivolous question (as I understand the term):
-will the frozen dinner I bought at the store taste good to me?
-I misplaced 25cents-where is it? (assuming the person is not a pauper)
-when I shooed my cat out of the living room, did I offend her?
-did X get bothered when I did not return his text message today?
HOWEVER, here's an example of (what I consider to be) a non-frivolous question:
-querent has been working hard to establish a close relationship with X, doing so being an important goal in life for the querent:
-did I damage my relationship with X by forgetting to return his text message today?
-will the frozen dinner I bought at the store taste good to me?
-I misplaced 25cents-where is it? (assuming the person is not a pauper)
-when I shooed my cat out of the living room, did I offend her?
-did X get bothered when I did not return his text message today?
HOWEVER, here's an example of (what I consider to be) a non-frivolous question:
-querent has been working hard to establish a close relationship with X, doing so being an important goal in life for the querent:
-did I damage my relationship with X by forgetting to return his text message today?
Last edited:
There are questions that are simplistic and seem frivolous to me, but which are important and not that way to others.
40 years of counseling children showed me that. Children(and adults) often have questions or concerns that other people consider stupid or useless or frivolous.
40 years of counseling children showed me that. Children(and adults) often have questions or concerns that other people consider stupid or useless or frivolous.
Kaiousei no Senshi
Premium Member
The best advice I can give for identifying frivolous horary questions is to ask them to pay you for your time. I've had 0 cases of a frivolous horary question in my professional experience.
Barring that, I usually ask "is this information that this person needs to know to help them in some way?" and "is this information any of this person's buisness?" to help counter third-person horaries because the rules are quite clear about them and what types are acceptable.
Barring that, I usually ask "is this information that this person needs to know to help them in some way?" and "is this information any of this person's buisness?" to help counter third-person horaries because the rules are quite clear about them and what types are acceptable.
Good point!
I'd like to believe what you say is true however:
1. You never actually quote the book and page etc of the references you make, so as far as I know, you may have simply made them up.
2. You never actually explain what you are saying ACTUALLY MEANS. It is assumed by you, I guess, that you can quote obscure references and that people will actually know what these reference mean.
3. You sound so knowledgeable, but unfortunately you have no references to your skills anywhere, such as an FHP designation, a website, or a teacher. Your name is actually the name of a member of the Band Chicago(which I doubt is YOU), and searching for you anywhere is fruitless. Without this or any designation that shows you might actually be a traditional astrologer with some kind of credentials, we are just treated to your distinctly abrasive dismissing of everyone who doesn't think just like you. You could be a slightly precocious 12 year old child who simply doesn't know how to interact appropriately with grown-ups, or an inmate in a prison who never learned how to interact with people in a reasonable adult way, thus the place of living. I'm not saying you are either of these things, only that your interaction with others here suggests that you don't know how to interact without finding some way to insult the person you are responding to.
Of course, AC does not require any kind of explanation of who you are in any way and everyone knows this. The problem only arises when you are so abrasively direct, on wonders whether there is any reality to what you say.
Deleted by moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Deborah Houlding is an internationally well-respected Horary expert who has written many papers/books on the subject
- the following quotes are sourced from Deborah Houlding's free horary online tutorial LEARNING HORARY ASTROLOGY which may be viewed at her website http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary_intro.html
'…..Modern natal astrology gives free reign to creative interpretation of astrology's symbolic language, viewing planetary movements primarily as insights to our internal drives; in horary such an approach is too lax and open to a wide array of possible manifestations, making confident assessment of what is actually taking place in the outer life impossible.
For a workable, useful method of analyzing horary charts, astrological symbolism must be reduced to its most mundane application, given the context of the question.
At a high level, the inherent nature of Saturn may describe structuring, compressing, limitation, solidification; but horary needs to know about its lowest mundane level - that it may be symbolizing the wall that marks the boundary of the garden....'
'…..There are multitudes of possibilities as to what Saturn could be representing at the bottom end of its manifestations: a toxic herb, an old bone, a white haired man, a leather jacket, a crumbling ruin, a financial loss, an iceberg, a restraining order - the list is endless and fairly useless in practical terms unless it can be constrained in scope by knowledge of how its symbolism is altered and defined by additional astrological conditions. This, of course, requires detailed study of rigorous and sharply defined symbolism.
Modern textbooks that focus upon the essential principles of astrological symbolism cannot possibly fit the bill....'
'.. That's why horary has remained so reliant upon the traditional methods outlined in the historical texts that delve into such practical rulerships with great detail. The classic text is William Lilly's 17th century compendium Christian Astrology, a three-volume epic running to 832 pages of highly detailed information.
With such breadth and depth of information, it is possible to spend a lifetime studying horary and still feel that there is much left to discover....'
IleneK
Premium Member
I, for one, greatly appreciate Bob Zemco's generosity with his time and comments.
I have never learned so much so quickly than after following Bob and Tamara's comments in her recent thread about her family's legal dispute.
For me, that is what I am here for primarily--to learn.
Thank you, Bob.
I have never learned so much so quickly than after following Bob and Tamara's comments in her recent thread about her family's legal dispute.
For me, that is what I am here for primarily--to learn.
Thank you, Bob.
Last edited:
And, I'm sorry - didn't realize that you were the monitor on what should be in a discussion and what shouldn't. [/SIZE][/FONT]
Actually the person who is really supposed to decide that is the OP.
And as the OP, I would appreciate a movement back to a discussion of the question in Horary. Perhaps people could discuss the multiple birth time of question conundrums---where people act the same question over and over, or where people ask questions which other people can and do ask.
Additionally we could talk about questions relating to winning lotteries or horse races.
Personally I don't think horary is always the "best" route to take, regarding questions.
For example, I trust the reliability of an event chart in judging the developments in a marriage, as opposed to a horary question "how will my marriage develop"; or the time when starting a job with an employer, to a horary question "how will my job with this employer work out"...I'll prefer a SR or profection chart analysis to a horary, anytime, regarding questions about certain prospects during a specific period time.
Now, I am NOT denigrating the horary art, but (at least in my opinion, based on my studies and experiences) horary is not always the best, clearest or most reliable way (using astrology) to divine answers for any and all questions...
For example, I trust the reliability of an event chart in judging the developments in a marriage, as opposed to a horary question "how will my marriage develop"; or the time when starting a job with an employer, to a horary question "how will my job with this employer work out"...I'll prefer a SR or profection chart analysis to a horary, anytime, regarding questions about certain prospects during a specific period time.
Now, I am NOT denigrating the horary art, but (at least in my opinion, based on my studies and experiences) horary is not always the best, clearest or most reliable way (using astrology) to divine answers for any and all questions...
Kaiousei no Senshi
Premium Member
I have to sit on the opposite side of the fence on this one. Those kinds of questions are exactly what horary is for. Sure, you could go and use different techniques to potentially arrive at an answer, but it comes across as using tweezers to eat rice instead of a spoon. You could still eat all the rice, but it's much more difficult and comes across as more of a self-imposed challenge. Especially since many people aren't going to have exact times when they begin things (marriages, jobs, etc) or their concerns could potentially span a longer period of time than an SR covers.
Now, forgive me if I'm incorrect about this, but isn't the specificity and clarity of horary sort of exactly it's defining characteristics in comparison with other branches of astrology?
Deleted by moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
Please note that I said ALWAYS (ie, "not always") Also please note that I am merely expressing my personal opinion!
In my opinion, horary OFTEN IS the best and clearest way to tackle a specific question, and (although I use an alternative horary methodology) I have chosen horary here on AW to delineate many hundreds of questions! I'm merely saying that horary is not ALWAYS NECESSARILY the best way, just as the other methods I have mentioned in my earlier post, are not ALWAYS necessarily the best way either.
Yes, when (as is USUALLY the case!) one does not have the exact time for an event, horary becomes THE BEST way to get an answer about the event question! A popular horary question (from the 9th century up until a couple hundred years ago) was, "what does the coming year have in store for me?" Since MOST of the people did NOT know their birth times (many not even the year of their birth) in those days, horary was THE ONLY way such a question COULD have been delineated. I believe that there is NO overall superior predictive method in astrology-I believe EACH method has value, and that depending upon a totality of circumstances and considerations, one method might be more effective than another, in delineating an answer or indication, to a given question (or proposition) Horary is included here, but horary (in my opinion) does not exclude or trump, all other methods, under all circumstances and conditions.
In my opinion, horary OFTEN IS the best and clearest way to tackle a specific question, and (although I use an alternative horary methodology) I have chosen horary here on AW to delineate many hundreds of questions! I'm merely saying that horary is not ALWAYS NECESSARILY the best way, just as the other methods I have mentioned in my earlier post, are not ALWAYS necessarily the best way either.
Yes, when (as is USUALLY the case!) one does not have the exact time for an event, horary becomes THE BEST way to get an answer about the event question! A popular horary question (from the 9th century up until a couple hundred years ago) was, "what does the coming year have in store for me?" Since MOST of the people did NOT know their birth times (many not even the year of their birth) in those days, horary was THE ONLY way such a question COULD have been delineated. I believe that there is NO overall superior predictive method in astrology-I believe EACH method has value, and that depending upon a totality of circumstances and considerations, one method might be more effective than another, in delineating an answer or indication, to a given question (or proposition) Horary is included here, but horary (in my opinion) does not exclude or trump, all other methods, under all circumstances and conditions.
Last edited:
Zarathu
It's a good question. I'll comment on what some other people said in a moment, but first to answer your question:
"What constitutes a serious question, or a correct question in Horary? "
Well if I understand what you mean by 'correct' then I think any question which is important to the querent, in a manner which means that there is a sense of necessity, urgency or where the question greatly weighs on their mind and has done so for some time (ie, not just popped into their head) and for which they have tried/exhausted the normal means of discovering/answering the question is perfect for a horary question.
It is easier to answer what isn't. Questions which have been asked before - even if the querent rewords or throws in some additional clauses to obfuscate this fact. Questions designed to trick or test the astrologer. Questions for which the answer is not personally important to the querent.
A lot of the problem can be in 'coaching' the querent to ask the real question they want to know, because the question can often seem trivial but is actually important. I was once asked "Will he accept my facebook invite". I couldn't believe that this was the level of triviality I was being asked. I agree mostly with whomever it was said a good way of finding out can be to charge money (this quickly separates the frivolous from the necessary), however I do not charge money. So instead I asked why they needed to know, and after some discussion and dialogue back in forth, we got to the 'real' question: "Are we likely to have a romantic relationship".
Again this MAY seem frivolous but, to the querent, it wasn't. The chart drawn up seemed to tell a story which described the situation and then went on to answer that question. That's important. If the chart isn't describing the situation, something is wrong somewhere.
It's a good question. I'll comment on what some other people said in a moment, but first to answer your question:
"What constitutes a serious question, or a correct question in Horary? "
Well if I understand what you mean by 'correct' then I think any question which is important to the querent, in a manner which means that there is a sense of necessity, urgency or where the question greatly weighs on their mind and has done so for some time (ie, not just popped into their head) and for which they have tried/exhausted the normal means of discovering/answering the question is perfect for a horary question.
It is easier to answer what isn't. Questions which have been asked before - even if the querent rewords or throws in some additional clauses to obfuscate this fact. Questions designed to trick or test the astrologer. Questions for which the answer is not personally important to the querent.
A lot of the problem can be in 'coaching' the querent to ask the real question they want to know, because the question can often seem trivial but is actually important. I was once asked "Will he accept my facebook invite". I couldn't believe that this was the level of triviality I was being asked. I agree mostly with whomever it was said a good way of finding out can be to charge money (this quickly separates the frivolous from the necessary), however I do not charge money. So instead I asked why they needed to know, and after some discussion and dialogue back in forth, we got to the 'real' question: "Are we likely to have a romantic relationship".
Again this MAY seem frivolous but, to the querent, it wasn't. The chart drawn up seemed to tell a story which described the situation and then went on to answer that question. That's important. If the chart isn't describing the situation, something is wrong somewhere.
7000 years of horary doctrine!? This is news to me. Can you provide some additional information on this? What are implying is horary? The basic structure/rules for horary as we have it today is absolutely NOT 7000 years old, and closer to about 1800 years old, give or take a couple of centuries.
However I do agree with your rendition of Bonatti, which is the most important point in regards this discussion. Zarathu, I similarly suggest you simply read Bonatti, rather than assuming that because doesn't quote the chapter and verse at you that they are simply making it up.
Because I don't think Bob's references fully encapsulate Bonatti's thoughts with regards the hour ruler, I thought I'd provide you with a quote from him:
"The first way is whether the querent asks from an intention or not. For if the lord of the ascendant and the lord of the hour were the same, or the signs in which the aforesaid significators were, were of the same triplicity or the same complexion, the question will come to be from an intention. If indeed it were not so, or the ascendant were the end of some sign, the question will not be from an intention, nor rooted."
This is from Bonatti's Book of Astronomy (ie, his magum opus on astrology generally), and Treatise 5 in particular, which is Bonatti's 146 considerations regarding the judgement.
I think this quote better sums up what Bob was saying, and provides the references Zarathu was looking for.
However, my personal view is that, in reading the tradition more widely, that it is not by any means a unilateral agreement through the tradition that Bonatti's way is the only way to determine whether the querent had a true intention. Really his entire considerations give better context and do sum up the tradition much better, but we also have some slight, sometimes subtle, differences of opinion through the tradition. So I disagree with Bob that it doesn't matter what individual people think, cos rules is rules, because there is no wide monopoly on consensus found through the tradition, but, also, through the 'modern' tradition either. And whilst we ourselves may not accept 'modern authorities' we should accept that other people do, and that his question includes and indirectly addresses them.
That said, I think, Zarathu, you wouldn't go wrong to actually read Bonatti yourself when someone has provided you with a source. Otherwise the onus of the work is being asked to be taken up by the person who is trying to help you, but you could try to help yourself by simply reading it, rather than hope that others who help you go searching through their books to provide you with chapter and verse, it's tedious and tiring.
Unless you have a reason to question Bob's statement, then it might be good to take it on good faith that what he's saying reflects Bonatti's sentiment, especially when you yourself clearly have not read it. As for "what qualifications" does he have - let me ask another way, what qualifications or horary certificates did William Lilly, Bonatti etc. hold? How about the self-published Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson?
Last edited:
But you would be amazed at the number of people who try to do that here and on other forums. And its not just when Mercury is RX.
While you may believe that the answer to the original question is a done deal, for many astrologers its not a done deal. While "Bob" may believe something is a done deal, that doesn't mean that the whole thing is a done deal; personally, I don't subscribe to very much that "Bob" says, but others do sometimes.
There are lots of astrologers who are not sure how this works, and lots of newbie astrologers who don't understand the concept. We offer questions here for discussion even if we think we know the answer simply to see how other think. Its called "having a discussion".
Are you implying something here about my ability to ask questions on the forum in some oblique way? I asked a recent question about characteristics of the "control freak condition". I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to that one. However I wanted to know what other people think about it.
Deleted by moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
People who are not proficient with horary astrology do not follow the rules of horary astrology. I'm not sure this would amaze anyone.
The problem is that anyone can post a question online, but they are predominantly playing the role of querent, and they're trying to play the role of astrologer as well. Mostly people are not very good at that, especially when they start out. Therefore they'll ask questions, not be sure they did it right, and when they didn't get the answer they wanted, they'll reword and ask again.
This just tells us that people who aren't very proficient with horary are not very proficient at answering horary questions - just common sense.
But people do stupid things all the time, thing they're told are against the rules or against how something works. As the saying goes, it's madness to try the same thing multiple times and expect a different result, but people do it all the time. And nobody is more mad than someone in the initial stages of falling in love and insecure about whether its reciprocated. In my view, most 'repeat' horary questions are about romance.
Deleted by moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
wintersprite1
Premium Member
All,
A number of posts have been edited because of personal attack and a number have been deleted out right as there was not enough to salvage. Please do not continue the attacks. At this forum it is an expectation to respect other members and the techniques they use. This is not a Trad vs Modern discussion. Just give the information you are willing to do and leave others to do the same. Off topic posts have all been removed also.
A number of posts have been edited because of personal attack and a number have been deleted out right as there was not enough to salvage. Please do not continue the attacks. At this forum it is an expectation to respect other members and the techniques they use. This is not a Trad vs Modern discussion. Just give the information you are willing to do and leave others to do the same. Off topic posts have all been removed also.