During the many years thac passed since 1 first began the study of astrology, I have examined text books and particularly old texts, in English, German, French and Latin, even in Holland Dutch and Italian.'There has been one discovery made by me, which is very important for you, so that you can form judgment as to value of texts-
Several of these old texts I translated myself into English so as to get cheic drift better. In practically none of them have I been able to discover anything sensational, or different from another in ideas of application oc of methods how to forecast. Several newer texts, written within the last fifty odd years, show plainly that they were merely copies of older text books, if it- is all boiled down, we find thac, what the public calls an astrology book, is a rechewing of some original texts of the 15th oc l<5th century over and over. That writers of such astrology books know very little about astrology themselves, being mere copyists, is evident from their abstract way of writing, which makes them so difficult for students to understand the simplest rules. There is no independent research contained in their books, nothing to facilitate the understanding of rules.
A few words about the real old texts may be brought here also. Since my actual work of research on astrological laws has for many years been confined to Interpret the Bible, the Koran, and other related Sacred Books which contain real laws of planetary movements and how they affect us human beings, I found many times that, what I term ordinary astrological texts, are simply "swaps" from, the genuine astrology. The few people who knew the laws could not, as it seems, prevent some snoopers to get, here and there, a glimpse of what they were doing nay, they even thought they could steal the "how chey were doing it." But, whatever they thought they had picked up from the real astrologers, was not the right thing.. On the surface it appears to be right, in reality it was wrong. This is why when "astrologers" delve wholeheartedly into "terms, dwadashamshas, ruletships." etc. they can't make thenr work, irrespective how hard they try and how exact they work. Just the same, in each text book, the same things are brought, simply because the writer thinks they belong into the book, whether or not die student caa use them.
I have taught in the course of years my rules how to use astrology in trading stocks, wheat and other commodities, especially in my work "Handbook of Trend Determination for Stocks and Commodities." The rules used therein ate so different from ordinary astrological rules that he who learned ordinary book astrology, had to re-learn everything. This is mainly due to the fact, that what has to do with a universal commodity, such as wheat, cannot have something to do with a little individual called Kenneth S. or John N. First, I was learning, of course, from available astrological text until I could stand on my own feet and recognize thac what is written in astrological texts is but an attempt to prove something for which there exist rules, though only vaguely discernable. This statement should not be construed as if I want to say all astrological texts are no good; it simply means that the majority of astrological texts that are offered, ace monstrosities, like autos of the 1910 vintage, which ran all over the country, on which there was nothing refined, nothing of great permanent value.
The prime factor to be considered in everything is: what do we get out of it? Is it worthwhile to spend hours, days and weeks to study a method which afcer-wards you cm't put to use, or, if you do, it turns out 10 be all wrong? Supposing you buy land or some kind of a stock. You buy it, in order to sell it at a profit. If you can't mike a profit within a reasonable time, you have bought a "lemon." If you study something and after several months of diligent effort you try to apply such study in a practical way and everything turns out wrong, you might just as well not begin with such a study. Of course, many times, I have heard astrologers say, when things don't come out the way they had figured: Weil, it did nor work here, bur it tviII work some other time. Supposing you put your good money an that one thing, and it causes a severe loss, would you do it again? This does not imply that the rules as I shall bring in Part I and Part il, do work 100% at all times. We must realize there are hundreds and hundreds of minor conditions present that would have to be weighed besides.
But, if rules anywhere give 73 to 80% correct results, we have to do with rules and not with possibilities.
Was this article helpful?