This article arose from a brief exchange I had with a certain well-known traditional astrologer about mundane horaries.
Regarding a horary about a presidential election posted on a discussion group the well-known astrologer said:
“Horaries about mundane questions are not valid. We cannot expect that billions of people asking the same question about a presidential election will produce correct horaries.
After having heard such absurd statements from many traditional astrologers on different occasions, I wish to offer the following thoughts to the traditional astrology community:
The problem with a negative concept such as “do not do this” or “this is invalid” is that by its very nature, it precludes experience, and therefore, if we do not go on an adventure we are stuck with theory and opinions alone, and some untested rule to follow, which will determine the scope of our astrology. Kind of having the South Node on your 9th cusp.
Nobody has learned that fire burns by following our parents’ advice not to touch it. There is a limit to being cautious or conservative. And saying that mundane horaries are invalid is an error; as is discarding horary charts because of early and late degrees in the majority of cases in the 21st century. Kind of adding Mercury retrograde to the South Node.
If experience leads people to arrive at different conclusions about something; like you arrive at the conclusion that mundane horaries are invalid, and I arrive at the conclusion that they are valid, then we can discuss each person’s experience in detail.
That is what an honest discussion demands from mature professionals. From there one might learn something from one another.
But what am I offered instead?
“You cannot do it! Invalid!” No questioning, no investigation, no open mind whatsoever.
That is intellectually dishonest and disrespectful, to say the least. It is intellectual tyranny.
As for her argument that many people asking a question about the presidential election is asking “the same question”, that is an unexamined misconception.
So, let’s examine it:
There are no “billions of people asking” asking billions of astrologers.
We are talking about horary. Only the questions reaching an astrologer need to be part of the discussion. From those how many are genuine and clear unambiguous questions without a second agenda? And from those, how many astrologers are proficient enough to apply the correct technique?
There are no “billions” anywhere in relation to the issue of mundane horary questions. There are not even hundreds of horaries that will likely pass that screening. And from the few dozens that may pass what are the chances that they will be asked at the same time? And if some are, what is the problem, except our imagination that there is a problem?
We could stop here. I trust that a well-functioning Mercury gets the gist of what I am saying.
But let’s continue our examination. There is more to learn. This is good for Mercury and for the Sun…
Assume we have a realistic number of horaries we wish to analyze and compare to see if we can determine their validity or lack thereof.
We can apply common-sense and look into each individual chart and the querents and their contexts.
Let’s analyze them all, and then we can perhaps learn something about astrology and what is and what is not valid in horary.
However, in the absence of all of that hard but necessary work on our own education, I can offer a shortcut because the proof is in the pudding.
There are several mundane horaries on this website shown along with congruent technique usage and interpretation, including presidential election predictions. Browse around.
I also have two webinars dedicated to mundane subjects and horary astrology: Mundane Astrology Horary 1 and Mundane Astrology Horary 2.
The unfortunate evidence from what Well-Known astrologer is saying is that, as a respected teacher by many, she is passing her self-inflicted limitations along to her students and those who listen to her without any proof or examination. Because, remember: she told you NOT to do something. So, how are you going to know if what she said is true or not? You cannot if you follow her blindly. You will not have the required experience to be able to tell right from wrong in this instance.
Regarding rules, which a whole crowd of traditional astrologers seem to be enamored with and which they never questioned, I recommend questioning where they come from, and investigate people’s needs and motivations for creating them. There may well be a good reason (here is an example ↗), or there may be not. It may be a bad reason, such as the one Well-Known astrologer is preaching.
If the rule comes from dead astrologers all the more need of caution, for the obvious reason that dead authors do not engage in discussion, and their mistakes that were committed to ink remain in print, and are favorite food for parrots.
Beware of living astrologers too because if your house 12 resonates with theirs your astrology will suffer. As this article is evidence of, some living astrologers are unable to engage in discussion either.
There is a time to follow and be guided, and there is a time to think for oneself.
Do not accept limitations without a good reason and without being conscious and feeling light about it. And be aware of our own and other people’s states of mind and motivations, including (especially) your teacher’s.
Test any rules in practice repeatedly. If it works consistently, good. You now have embodied the knowledge that was once only theory. And you are a better, more confident astrologer as a result.
An astrologer is here to serve. To serve wholesome information. Let’s not make it any more complicated than that, and do our jobs.
