Astrology Tarot Spread

214red

Hi
I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, if it isnt can you move it moderators please:)

I am learning astrology after spending a few years learning tarot, i have tried an astrology spread, but i find it hard to bring the information together, i cant seem to bridge the gap between tarot and astrology (i do use astrology when reading tarot cards, but just not in an astorlogy spread).

for instance i got the empress in the 5th house which as the house of fun i understood,as my 5th house is ruled by cancer. But then i also got the fool in the 3rd house which i couldnt understand at all

has anyone got tips on using this type of spread?

thanks
Nik
 

dadsnook2000

Example horoscope spread

214red, if you go to my blog, http://ninethhouse.wordpress.com/ you'll find a full horoscope spread illustrate and read the way an astrologer would read such a spread, complete with trines, conjunctions, oppositions and squares. Dave
 

214red

dadsnook2000 said:
214red, if you go to my blog, http://ninethhouse.wordpress.com/ you'll find a full horoscope spread illustrate and read the way an astrologer would read such a spread, complete with trines, conjunctions, oppositions and squares. Dave

thanks Dave!

did you link the house the card was in to the house itself as i cant see it in your reading, as i was linking the tarot card to both the house and the planet it rules in my chart. i wanted to know what state i was in compared to how i should be.
 

dadsnook2000

Reading a tarot horoscope spread.

Quote: did you link the house the card was in to the house itself as i cant see it in your reading, as i was linking the tarot card to both the house and the planet it rules in my chart.

Answer, this is a tarot spread, not a chart. I never intended, in my use of this spread, to link a specific house to a ruler ---- houses don't have rulers, but signs do.

The spread is about the cards, about the "house" positions they are in, and about the aspect-relationships that we assign to the cards/houses relative to their house-positions. I don't like to use astro-babble or tarot-babble so the specific references to houses and their meanings are not made overly obvious by being directly spelled out. Everyone will modify the house meanings somewhat to fit the question, so I've gone light on giving specific house meanings.

If you have specific questions you can post them here or on the blog and we can discuss them. If you have a question that touches on a comprehensive issue which might be suitable for such a reading, you can place it on the blog and I'll do the reading there. That way we will both learn something and will also be able to share it with others. Posting larger graphics isn't possible here on AT, the blog is better for that. Dave
 

214red

hi Dave
i did look more thoroughly through your site, it was rellay helpful! thanks for posting the link

Nik
 

BigLuna

dadsnook2000 said:
houses don't have rulers, but signs do.

Hi, Dave.

Do you mean in your readings spread that the houses don't have rulers. Maybe I've misunderstood you. I was taught that houses do have planetary rulers.
 

dadsnook2000

Houses

The astrological systems that I have studied have never assigned rulers to houses. "Rulers" are associated with signs. A sign may be on a house cusp and that sign ruler may be part of one's interpretive process--but that doesn't mean that that house has a planetary ruler. There is a difference.

HOUSES are mathematically defined segments of the 360 degree chart circle which are (in most systems) un-equal in arc-size except for the opposite house. Houses are related to the functional areas of our life: How we experience daily events, what we desire and value, how we communicate, how we live and protect ourselves, our loves, our work and service, etc.

SIGNS are both a measuring convenience for placing planets and determining aspects between them, and a interpretive model that supposedly modifies and imbues planets with emotional and attitudinal qualities: anger-rashness-haste, seeking comfort and pleasure, expressing oneself, surrounding oneself with security, parading one's pride and image before others, etc.

Statistical studies and historical research have both found and applied certain qualities to signs based on the planet's apparent strengths and weaknesses in those signs.
** HISTORY has given us ancient exhalations of planets in specific signs and degrees of those signs which many astrologers use today --- even though those star positions were cast in the Sidereal Zodiac and have no relation to the same positions in the Tropical Zodiac which almost everyone uses.
** HISTORICAL PRACTICE of the Greeks (who really screwed astrology all up) and of more recent (last several centuries) times has given us dignities, falls, debilitations, etc. to go along with everything else. Many use these tools and practices that have come down to us.
** STATISTICAL STUDIES have shown that certain astrological bodies are more prevalent in some signs than others for those whose lives are linked to certain careers or endeavors. While these are highly interesting, they also are sometimes in great conflict with other similar studies as well as being hard to use in interpreting an individual chart. How satisfied would a client be if informed that they had a 17.82 percent chance of finding a job in a medical career, a 11.209 percent chance of working in publishing, but only a 3.667 chance of being a fireman? Not my kind of astrology.

So, what is the real basis for assigning a planet to a given sign if there is both statistical reasons against it and no interpretive value to be derived from it? As far as I can see, this is my opinion, all that is accomplished is that we get trapped into "astro-babble" and self-confusion.

I personally avoid this by using planets and houses --- these combination permit a clear and direct statement to be made. Dave
 

BigLuna

You don't buy into the notion that the natural ruler of the 4th house is the Moon, for example? The Moon is associated with mother, family, home, memories, etc., events/situations which we would look at the 4th house to get try to understand.

You would look only at the sign on the cusp? Or you would only look at what shape the Moon is in?

Do you use equal house systems?

Could you tell me how you would go about interpreting the mother in someone's chart?
 

dadsnook2000

The Moon

The Moon is associated with feelings, responses, primary needs, older memories, change, cyclic flows, the reflection of other things (the response mechanism, reaction), and indirectly of fears, hidden urges, retreat. These things are not associated with fourth house meanings.

The fourth house is one end of the chart's vertical axis and can represent starts and endings, the family situation, the parental axis, the home. The other end of this axis, the MC, represents one's stated goals, image, reputation in the outer world.

The Moon meanings given and the house values given seem to be quite separate from each other. I have observed that both early-studies students and even some published authors intermix the two sets of meanings without discrimination. I come from a collective school represented by Jeff Mayo, Margaret Hone, Noel Tyl, Robert Pelletier, Dane Rudhyar, Marc Robertson and many others who have always been quite careful about the distinctions between the different interpretive models. Perhaps there are other schools of astrological thought that I have not been exposed to that are more prone to mixing and matching. We all have to choose what we use and how we use it. The only concerns, as I see it, are the trio of concerns of 1) serving our clients well, 2) being careful about what we teach others, and 3) always seeking to improve our understanding and practice of astrology. Dave
 

Minderwiz

There are as many problems with houses as there are with signs. The key, and obvious one is that there is no agreed method of calculation - all use 30 degree arcs for each house, which in a real sense makes all houses equal. The problems are that there's no agreed definition of 'arc' here, whether it's time or space are two obvious differences. Also 'equal' at what 'place'? Houses are two dimensional representations of 3 dimensional space and latitude affects the 'projection' of house cusps.

I'm one of those who is fairly blase about the 'mess' of house definitions, I tend to use either Regiomontanus or Placidus, not because I believe these have any mathematical superiority but because I like them LOL.

Do planets rule houses? Accidentally yes they do. But it is only 'accidentally' that is related to the specific chart you are looking at. Saturn may 'rule' my Seventh,as I have Aquarius on the descendant, but that does not mean that Saturn has any particular essential links to partnership, matrimony, etc. It's a significator of those in my chart but we need to distinguish between signification and essential nature. So 'ruler' here is a shortened form of 'ruler of the sign on the Seventh cusp'.

Astrology also has built up a whole series of natural correspondences. Now there have been many attempts to try and reform or clear these out. Trouble is they are still with us and are so imbued into the subject that I think that's something of a losing battle. But again there's a need to distinguish between the 'sympathetic' side and the essential side. Cancer may naturally be associated with the fourth house but that's a very general association and we shouldn't run away with the view that a specific fourth house is 'Cancerian' in nature. So in a sense the Moon has some links with the fourth but those links are at a very general level and unless your fourth actually is Cancer then it's best to forget about them.

Dave neatly sidestepped the question about where he would look to describe the Mother, (or for information and issues relating to the Mother). Now Dave's list of lunar associations is psychological, that doesn't invalidate it at all but it is not comprehensive. I'd certainly look at the condition of the Moon when trying to describe the Mother. The Moon is the premier female significator in any chart, be that wife, mother, girl friend (there are those who would go so far as to say that the Moon is the prime significator of a chart full stop).

So the Moon needs to be considered for the Mother. Dave points out that the fourth relates to the parents (among other things) and if we need to separate the parents and consider one, tradition has the father taking the fourth and the mother taking the tenth (as the father's partner). So I'd also look at the ruler of the tenth (in the above sense), even if this were Saturn. Indeed some psychologists might have a field day with that one, with mothers trying to play the role of fathers and being principle breadwinners or carrying the social status of the family. I'd also look at planets in the tenth - If I were a disciple of Morin, I'd even say that planets in the tenth carried more weight than Lord 10, if he or she were an absentee landlord (i.e. not in the tenth).

My point on the above is to really stress that there is not just one significator of the mother, there may be two or three and all would need to be considered.

The more I read of Astrology the more I realise just how diverse it is and that there are a whole load of traditions and views. The idea that at some point Astrology lost it's direction and needs to be restored is also a fairly widespread one. Dave says as much with his comment on the Greeks. This suggests that there was a 'pure' form of Astrology, a sort of Astrological Garden of Eden, from which we have fallen into error. In the Renaissance the blame was attached to the Arabs, to the Hermetics, to the practice of Judicial Astrology, etc. The Astrologers that Dave mentioned also tried to reform it and put it back into working order. Ironically they too are now seen by some as the reason Astrology 'failed' and there is an attempt to restore 'Real Astrology'. I saw a comment the other day from Benadette Brady who said that in 10 years Traditional Astrology would have 'won'. It's a tongue in cheek comment but it shows that the reforms of one era can become the 'discredited' notions of another.

I n an analagous sense, Astrology is like Humpty Dumpty, it can't be put back together again but personally I think that is because it was never 'together' in the first place.