Traditional medical astrology texts often present a two-step diagnostic process that has become entrenched in astrological practice.
First, examine Lord 1 (the ascendant ruler) and compare its natural elemental qualities with those of the sign it occupies. If they don’t match, the person is considered “unwell” or ill. Second, look to the dispositor of Lord 1 to determine the nature and severity of the illness.
The flaw in this approach is similar to our noses, as they say: we cannot see it without some effort involved. Consider the following scenario to illustrate it.
A person comes to you saying, “I have terrible pain in my liver, digestive issues, chronic fatigue, and multiple health problems.” They’re clearly suffering and seeking help. Now imagine their chart shows the Moon as Lord 1 positioned in Pisces. According to traditional theory, the Moon is naturally cold and moist, and Pisces is also cold and moist. Since the elements match, the theory suggests this person is “not unwell.” This creates an absurd contradiction between obvious reality and astrological theory. The person is standing before you with clear health problems, yet the chart supposedly indicates they’re fine. (Who said traditional medical astrology has no relation to modern medicine in terms of blindness?)
When someone comes to you with health concerns, they already have a problem. You don’t need the chart to confirm it—the querent’s presence and symptoms already establish that. The context. The chart’s job is to diagnose the nature of the problem, not to determine whether problems exist.
This little medical astrology silliness reminds me of the horary astrologer who begins the interpretation by describing the querent—oh, Mars is in house 8 so you have a scar on your left buttock, don’t you? I’m so smart and powerful with horary… Now that I know who you are I can try to answer your question…
Skips the elemental soap opera and go directly to the dispositor and do what medical astrologers are meant to do, that is: diagnose.
This critique is meant to acknowledge that historical texts contain both gems and errors. Traditional astrologers in the past were experimenting and learning, just as we are today. Not every technique that survived in classical texts actually works in practice. John Frawley himself identified numerous problems in classical texts, often noting in brackets that he’d examined certain techniques and found them to be nonsensical. This honest reassessment helps separate working techniques from historical curiosities.
The evolution of astrological knowledge requires this kind of practical testing and refinement. Contemporary practice has revealed useful discoveries like the importance of the dispositor in diagnosis and House 11 for treatment side effects, for example, while also identifying outdated methods. We must remain willing to refine our methods based on practical results rather than blind adherence to historical practices.
