Incense for Fixed Star Talisman Consecration

I had a question about what incense to use for suffumigating a fixed star talisman during consecration. Suffumigation means to move the talisman back and forth through the rising smoke of incense. This is a very important part of any talisman consecration. Take a look at my Consecrating Talismans Video.

There are lots of fixed stars, but we don't have much information on how to use them talismanically except for what appears in our traditional sources. One of the key sources circulated widely in the Middle Ages under the title, Hermes on the 15 Fixed Stars. This lists 15 stars, with some variation depending on the manuscript as far as which stars, and lists for each star what effects the talisman has, what image to put on the talisman, what gem or mineral and plant and herbs are ruled by the fixed star. Hermes on the 15 Fixed Stars was a key source for the Renaissance mage Cornelius Agrippa and his Three Books of Occult Philosophy. You can read Agrippa's fixed star rulerships

One of the reasons that we stick to Hermes on the 15 Fixed Stars is that we have extensive lists of what these stars rule, which allows us to determine appropriate materials for the talisman and for incense to use for suffumigating the talisman. For the fixed star Capella, for example, Agrippa says, "Horehound, Mint, Mugwort, and Mandrake" Hermes says "Horehound seed mixed with equal parts of mint, wormwood and mandrake" For Spica, Agrippa says, "Sage, Trifoile, Perwinkle, Mugwort, and Mandrake." Hermes says, "Sage juice with trefoil, periwinkle, wormwood and mandrake" You don't need to use all of these, so for Capella, mint or mugwort, either of which is quite easy to find, is excellent for suffumigation. Mugwort doubles up with Spica!

Now, of course, for resin incense and herbs, you need charcoal and an incense burner. Lit the charcoal and place the herb or plant on the burning charcoal. ALWAYS do a Google search to see if burning a plant, herb or resin is toxic, as some of the listed herbs, etc. are toxic.

Ok, next option is just to use stick incense. This is what I increasingly do, following Zen Buddhist rituals. The most important thing is to burn some kind of incense and at least one candle. Don't think, "well I can't get mandrake, so I will just give up and do nothing" Incense and candles are pretty key.

Now, I use a very tiny amount of incense as I don't like smoke. Some people can't handle any at all and have used essential oils. The jury is still out on this, probably better than nothing though and if you have a severe allergy, then I think the planets and stars will understand.

Here is More information on fixed star talismans and a Video on Consecrating Astrological Talismans.

Considerations Before Judgment?

I had a poster ask about the "Considerations Before Judgment" citing John Frawley's skepticism about them in his Horary Textbook and asking me what I thought about them.

The Considerations Before Judgment are listed in Lilly's Christian Astrology at pages 121-3. Some contemporary practitioners of traditional astrology have taken to refusing to judge charts if any of the considerations are present.

I agree 100% that the presence of the "considerations before judgment" do not mean that the chart is inaccurate. I have judged many, many charts with considerations and I find that far from making the chart unjudgeable that they provide very useful, albeit typically negative information.

This is similar to technical radicality, which Lilly mentions as the first type of consideration on page 121 of Christian Astrology. This is checking to see if the rising sign corresponds to the planetary hour. Again, I find that being technically radical is a plus, but lacking it does not mean that the chart is inaccurate. This is probably the most confusing part of my readings for clients, since they frequently ask about it. And I'm not being just being modern, here. Nicholas Culpepper in his Opus Astrologicum, Aphorism 21, cites technical radicality and then comments, "I have found many Questions to be true where this [technical radicality] is not so."

Ok, so I go even further than Frawley and the only thing that stops me from judging a chart is 0 degrees rising. This is what I tell clients who get 0 degrees rising on a horary chart,

"Ok, we got 0 degrees rising. This has two possible meanings.

(1) 0 degrees rising means you are not asking the root question. What do I mean by root question? I had a client ask, "Should I move to Austin?" We got 0 degrees rising. I asked, "Is this the root question?" They answered, "Oh, should we even move from Ann Arbor?" The answer was no. Second example, the client asked, "Should I get the surgery with Dr X?" 0 degrees rising, again I asked "Is this the root question?" they asked, "Oh, should I even get the surgery?" Answer, no.

(2) 0 degrees rising means the situation has not jelled yet.

So consider whether you are asking the root question. If not, ask the root question. If you think you are, then wait a bit and ask the question again."

What is really uncanny about 0 degrees rising charts is that the chart/situation really starts talking to you, you almost get a dialogue going! I once had a client who got 0 degrees twice in a row, the chart was emphatic that they weren't asking the right question!

I'm not sure I would describe the considerations as "tricks". We moderns tend to automatically reject anything we don't immediately understand. We have a very rigid view of how things work and if something doesn't fit, out with it! Also we tend to be very skeptical of the past. This is not how traditional thinkers operated. They respected the tradition and were willing to accept many possible outlooks simultaneously. Rather than rejecting past technique, they would typically mention it and then say, "but I don't personally follow this".

"Traditional Astrology"?

After 15 years of using the term "traditional astrology" as a label for the astrology practiced in Europe between 1200 and 1700 without incident, all of a sudden this definition is WRONG!

Everyone must now get in line with the new orthodoxy, which is since "traditional" is good, then all astrology (with the possible exception of modern, at least for now) is now "traditional". After all if there is a tradition of astrology, then certainly Hellenistic astrology must be part of that tradition, therefore it is "traditional" too.

Let me first say that, thank goodness, for the most part we live in societies where we are all free to use whatever astrological terminology we wish. I have no problem with astrologers setting up their own web sites, discussion groups, blog, Facebook pages, etc., and changing around whatever definitions or terms they wish. What I object to is being deprived of freedom of speech on my own website, discussion group, blog and Facebook page. I've been told, in effect, that I am wrong and that I have an obligation to change how I speak, act, write and teach.

So what's going on here? My main goal in using the term "traditional astrology" is to try and have an accurate label and all be on the same page when discussing different types of astrology. Astrology in the West does basically divide itself chronologically and in terms of technique and philosophy into several internally coherent and consistent systems.

Astrology appears to have originated in Babylon and Chaldea circa 400-200 BC and diffused to the Graeco-Roman world. Graeco-Roman astrology circa 200 BC to AD 400 is generally referred to as Hellenistic astrology. Astrology was practiced in the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, and then diffused to the Islamic civilization of the Middle Ages, there circa 800-1000 AD a new type of astrology, a new synthesis of Western Hellenistic and Persian astrology with Syriac and Indian astrology, was created. This Arabic astrology was the basis of European astrology in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. The difference is mostly one of simplification as astrology moved forward in time.

So "traditional astrology" is the term I use for European astrology of the Middle Ages and Renaissance or European astrology as practiced between circa 1200 and 1700 AD. Clearly one could move a bit earlier or later, one can always argue over specific boundaries. Nevertheless medieval and Renaissance European astrology is a unified and coherent school and system. Traditional astrology as a term is much less of a mouthful than "European astrology of the Middle Ages and Renaissance" or "European astrology as practiced between circa 1200 and 1700 AD"

Astrology then essentially died out in Europe circa 1700, due to the "Enlightenment" and the rise of atheistic/materialist views of reality. When astrology was revived in the late 19th century, it had lost much of its technique and ability to predict. The fusion of Jungian psychology and New Age thinking gave rise to modern astrology, predominately concerned with psychology and almost entirely focused on natal astrology.

So, basically what we have are 3 general areas of Western astrology, that is Hellenistic, Traditional and Modern astrology. These areas are quite distinct from each other and use very different techniques and methodologies, though of course they have a family resemblance. When I first started practicing traditional astrology, 15 years ago, different astrologers used different terms for it. Zoller, since he focused on Bonatti, said he was a "medieval" astrologer. My main horary teacher Lee Lehman used the term "classical" astrology, though I felt this was confusing because classical usually meant Graeco-Roman and thus there was confusion with Hellenistic astrology. My original horary teacher Carol Wiggers used the term "traditional" astrology. This made sense to me.

However, the other major astrologer, John Frawley, using the term "traditional" astrology had a different twist on it. Frawley speaks of "the Tradition" and this concept is clearly very important to him. See his Tradition article. I'm still not entirely sure what he means by it and this is not what I am talking about when I say "traditional astrology", for me it is just a synonym for medieval and Renaissance European astrology.

Next, the term "traditional astrology" has developed some cachet, some prestige. I think this is due to the efforts of many astrologers, Frawley, certainly, perhaps myself, but more to the fact that traditional astrology is unsurpassed in its predictive power and accuracy and unusual in that there are significant numbers of astrologers who don't mix and match, but practice only traditional astrology.

When we look at what astrologers actually do in their practice and what methods and philosophy they espouse, in my opinion, there really are only 2 kinds of astrologers, traditional and modern. Modern astrology is built on a buffet style, grab bag approach. All other types of astrology are just giant bone heaps that can be mined for little nuggets of technique. The modern astrologer assembles their own personal bricolage of methodology and creates their own personal synthesis. Nothing wrong with that, if one is an astrological genius on the level of Abu Mashar or Mashallah. I know I'm not, so I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants, our illustrious predecessors, another reason I am a traditional astrologer.

So with this in mind, my view is that there are no actual Hellenistic astrologers, because no one actually practices with all of their technique being Hellenistic. Many so called Hellenistic astrologers are simply modern astrologers with a higher percentage of Hellenistic technique than is normal, with modern and traditional methods also mixed in. Same with Mayan, Celtic, etc., etc. Basically these terms become the equivalent of a designer label, purely for prestige, without accurately describing the contents. This is what the new orthodoxy wants to do with the term "traditional" get the prestige, but make the term meaningless as an accurate label of technique. Traditional is now supposed to mean everything other than modern and no doubt the moderns will argue that they are traditional, too, if the term gets any more cachet.

I was a traditional astrologer when that term was meaningless to most astrologers (it still is actually) or when it was a red flag to various modern astrologer bulls. That it has picked up some prestige is nice, but that's not why I use the term, I use it because it seems to me to be a useful way to label a particular school of astrology. I will continue to use the term "traditional astrology" as I have for the past 15 years.

Others are free to disagree, everybody can think whatever they wish on their own time and in their own space. But that means I get the same freedom not to be hassled, pressured or harassed on my discussion group, blog, etc. Let's grant each other the right to disagree and respect that right. Once everyone has made their opinions clear, refusing to stop arguing, continue to put pressure on those that disagree with one's position is profoundly selfish and disrespectful.

Archeology of the Term Hermetic & Hermetic Reading List

I had a question recently asking me what I meant when I said I practiced "Hermetic" magic?

Well, let's look at the dictionary definition, "(1) made airtight by fusion or sealing.; (2) not affected by outward influence or power; isolated; (3) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of occult science, especially alchemy; (4) of or pertaining to Hermes Trismegistus or the writings ascribed to him. Origin: 1630–40; Medieval Latin hermeticus of, pertaining to Hermes Trismegistus, equivalent to Latin Herme"

Ok, this actually lays things out really well! As we move from definition (1) up to definition (4) we go back in time from more contemporary definitions back to the original and all the definitions fit nicely together. So the original definition of Hermetic, which is what I mean when I say I practice Hermetic magic, means following the teaching attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, which are the philosophical Hermetica, in particular the Corpus Hermeticum as well as the technical Hermetica, which are practical texts of the Hermetic arts of alchemy, astrology and magic. The earliest written versions that we have of these teachings are circa 1st century AD, but likely are older.

Then as we go a bit further forward in time, to definition (3), hermetic has come to mean occult sciences in general, and specifically alchemy. This is the sense in which the 19th century Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn uses the term hermetic. Similarly, we can understand definition (2) how hermetic could come to be isolated, as the word occult means hidden. Finally, definition (1) the current usage, a hermetic or airtight seal, which comes from practical laboratory alchemy.

Very interesting! We have a complete archeology of the term hermetic. By following the etymology of the word, we can understand it more completely.

Now, of course, I use the oldest, most traditional definition, no surprise there! When I say I practice Hermetic magic, I don't mean I use airtight seals or that I am doing occult magic, I mean that I actually follow the Corpus Hermeticum and practical Hermetica, particularly as those sources were known and explained in Picatrix and by Renaissance mages like Cornelius Agrippa and Marcilio Ficino. Well, that and putting this magical practice within a Buddhist context! Here's an example of my Hermetic Zen Ritual

As a good general intro here is my Hermes Trismegistus page

I also have two Youtube videos on Hermeticism:

a History of Hermeticism

and Hermetic Gnosis

Here is a a reading list of authentic Hermetica:

I recommend Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum translated by Brian Copenhaver

I can also recommend two good secondary sources on Hermeticism:

the Egyptian Hermes by Garth Fowden

and the Secret History of Hermes Trismegistus by Florian Ebeling

We should also keep in mind that reading and just reading books makes one a dabbler and dilettante in Hermeticism or almost any other practical subject.

Alchemy, astrology and magic are the three Hermetic arts and by actually learning AND practicing traditional astrology and astrological magic, you are preparing yourself for the true Hermetic spiritual path. If you are serious about learning Hermeticism take one of my full courses in particular the full Astrological Magic Course

This includes a free copy of the most important book of Hermetic astrological magic, the Picatrix

Riffing within the Tradition

I got a very good question the other day about horary and in particular Lilly's famous Christian Astrology, from a student of mine and member of my discusssion group, Spiritus Mundi, Kiel Price.

Kiel asked, "Just a quick question, perhaps I'm missing something here. Page 305 of Christian Astrology says "The Lord of the Ascendant in the seventh, the Querent loveth best;". Yet page 317 of Christian Astrology seems to say the exact opposite. "...when the Lord of the Ascendant was in the seventh, the quesited loved best." If you could shed some light on this that would be great."

Ok, very good question! Let's back up a bit here. First, we are talking about marriage and relationship horaries here. These are pretty key for any practicing horary astrologer since I'd estimate about 75% of my horary clients are asking about relationships. Next, we are discussing emplacement. Lilly explains emplacement as follows:

"Lastly, things are sometimes perfected by the dwelling of Planets in houses, viz. when the Significator of the thing demanded is casually posited in the Ascendant; as if one demand if he shall obtain such a Place or Dignity, if then the Lord of the tenth be placed in the Ascendant, he shall obtain the Benefit, Office, Place or Honour desired:"

Christian Astrology page 126.

Basically emplacement is a way of connecting significators or in this case a significator with the affairs of a house. If the significator of the querent or quesited is in a particular house it indicates a connection between the two.

Ok, so now when we are talking about a relationship, what does it mean when the significator of the querent is in the 7th house, the house of the quesited, the person the querent is asking if they will have a relationship with. Lilly at page 305 says that if the significator of the querent is in the 7th then the querent is more interested and wants the relationship more than the quesited. Conversely, Lilly at 305 says that if the significator of the quesited is in the Ascendant, the house of the querent, that the quesited wants the relationship more. Lilly goes on to say, and this is very interesting, that if the lord of the 7th, ie the significator of the quesited, is in the 7th, that this indicates that the quesited "is free from love, has little mind to Marriage..." ie is not interested in a relationship with the querent.

So it is rather perplexing that at page 317 Lilly says the exact opposite, ie, lord of the 7th in the Ascendant, the QUERENT wants the relationship the most and vice versa. However, the mystery is dispelled by the immediately previous phrase, "Contrary to all the rules of the Ancients, I (!!!!) have ever found..." and then Lilly states his backwards rule.

Very interesting! This gives us a very useful insight into how a traditional astrologer saw his sources and how they fit into the tradition. Much of Christian Astrology is taken right out of earlier traditional sources, in particular Guido Bonatti's Book of Astronomy. In fact, many of Lilly's marriage rules are word for word from Bonatti. Traditional astrologers, just like traditional scholars in general did not consider this plagiarism because they were less concerned with originality. They saw themselves as part of a long lineage and had no problem using ancient sources. Lilly is firmly within traditional astrology, but is not afraid to say, in particular circumstances, that he doesn't follow individual "ancient rules"

Now, my almost invariable tendency when Lilly does this and innovates is to stick with the older methods. In this case, I use the page 305 method, such that significator of the querent in the 7th, the querent wants the relationship more, etc. It is the older method, it makes more sense to me and most importantly in my wide experience as a professional horary astrologer, it works! Similarly with Lilly's use of the modified essential dignity system, I go with the older Dorothean triplicities, etc., etc.

Now I am not saying that Lilly was a bad astrologer, or that he was wrong to innovate. It certainly seems to have worked for him. None of these innovations were so radical as to take him outside traditional astrology unlike having the modern planets rule signs or making the 8th house the house of sex. Also Lilly's innovations are based on very wide experience, Lilly saw huge numbers of clients, in a two year period, for example, 1654-6, he saw over 4,000! Most importantly Lilly's basic philosophy was traditional, he was not a modern atheistic/materialist though those influences were growing during this period.

This wide experience and philosophical orientation are key, but ultimately staying within the tradition is the only way that one can claim the illustrious title of traditional astrologer. Even so, it is very important to be straightforward about what the basis for one's methods are. You should be able to quote a pre-1700 source or be honest about innovating. Nothing wrong with innovation so long as it is acknowledged.

Let's Get Traditional With Reception

A series of unfortunate events made the very useful technique of reception very confusing. First I really regret that the 17th century astrologers messed with it and tried to limit it to mutual reception, then some contemporary traditional astrologers further muddied the waters.

Let's start with the traditional definition from Bonatti, the classic medieval source,

"And it is said if a planet is joined with the lord of the sign in which it is or the lord of the exaltation of the same sign, or with the the lord the [term] or triplicity or face, either bodily or by aspect [they are in reception] However, this is true [only] if it is joined with the lord of the [sign] or exaltation, or with the lord of two of the lesser dignities, to wit with [a planet which is] the lord of the [term] and triplicity, or with lord of the [term] and face, or with the lord of the face and triplicity..."

Liber Astronomiae, Tr. III ch 13 (the corresponding passage can be found in the Dykes trans at 223)

In other words, you need two planets and (1) they are making an applying aspect and (2) at least one planet is in the other's sign or exaltation, or in the others triplicity plus term, triplicity plus face or face plus term.

Even though Lilly only defines reception in terms of mutual reception, ie two planets, both in each other's sign or exaltation, he actually uses the older definition in examples in Christian Astrology. I much prefer the term "generosity" which Ibn Ezra uses for two planets each being in each other's sign or exaltation without needing an aspect. Beginning of Wisdom, Epstein trans page 125.

Then to make things even more confusing some contemporary traditional astrologers starting saying that planets in mutual reception switched signs or places or something, what? I never understood what this was about and it is not supported by actual traditional sources.

So with regard to reception we have a big mess! Actually it is pretty straightforward. If you have two planets making an applying aspect and at least one is in the sign or exaltation or two minor dignities of the other, it makes the aspect go much more easily. A square with reception means problems that can be worked through, for example, and a trine with reception means smooth as silk! See Bonatti, Liber Astronomiae, Tr 6 Horary ch 2 Dykes trans page 362-4 for examples of this. If you don't have a copy of Bonatti's Horary Section of LA GET ONE! Here it is as an Amazon paperback Dykes has even put this out as an e-book.

They don't switch places, they don't increase in essential dignity, the interaction between them just goes so much more easily. For example, if Mercury is the ruler of the 7th applying to Jupiter, ruler of the 1st and Mercury is in Cancer and Jupiter in Aries, they are making a square with reception since Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter. However, Mercury is still peregrine and Jupiter, if this is a night chart, just dignified by triplicity, as the night ruler of fire signs. They aren't increased in essential dignity by reception, thus they aren't any stronger, but that argument they are about to have, maybe they can work through it.

Reception is a good example of where I part ways, even with Lilly, when that "modernizing" impulse kicks in. This was a problem even in the 17th century!

Fantasy versus Real Electional Astrology

I had question about how to do a house sale election since currently all planets are peregrine or afflicted.

Ok, here is where we get to real electional versus fantasy electional.

What's fantasy electional? When you stand back and lob shots at someone else's election, easy since NO ELECTION IS PERFECT! What's real electional? Having a real situation or real client that needs an election.

A client, or this personal situation, can't wait 50 years until everything aligns perfectly. In fact you generally not only have a specified date range, but also only certain days (eg Monday - Friday) and certain times of day (9 am - 5pm) are available. So we are going to have to tolerate some problems in the chart.

In this case, I know what you mean about peregrine planets. It's like making bricks without straw to have planets without essential dignity.

A Tip: Think about the Moon! She's fast moving, she's going to be exalted in Taurus or dignified by sign in Cancer twice a month. Can that be worked with? yes, no, maybe, see what's up.

Ok, so you've got nothing but peregrine planets, well in a pinch you can work with them. After all, while fantasy elections are about obtaining perfection or at least whining when it's not present, real elections are about at a minimum, avoiding the really #@$%! times. This is definitely worthwhile even if you can't get a great time.

1st house - 7th house elections, ie wedding, and sales in this case the 7th is the house of the buyer, are tough because the only possible planetary combinations are Moon-Saturn, Sun-Saturn, Mercury-Jupiter and Venus-Mars.

I think if you can't get the planets stronger than peregrine, then at least try to get a nice applying positive aspect of the 1st and 7th ruler.