skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Can reception without aspect bring a matter to perfection?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Robert Bailey



Joined: 03 Oct 2016
Posts: 17
Location: Canberra, Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:00 am    Post subject: Can reception without aspect bring a matter to perfection? Reply with quote

Hi all

This is my first post on the forum, although I've been lurking for a while now. I'd like to take advantage of the other members experience in horary to help me with a technical question that has often bugged me.

Basically, my question is, can reception alone, without aspect, be enough to judge that an event will happen? I should highlight that I mean event here, I am not talking about a question where you are merely analyzing the condition of things. I am talking about a question like, "Will Event X occur to me or not?"

I'd be especially interested in what practicing astrologers have to say on this matter. Have you ever seen charts where the significators were in some kind of reception, mutual or not, but had no aspect, yet the event transpired?

To elaborate, I've noticed in Christian Astrology, Lilly writes that "many times when as the effecting of the matter is denied by the Aspects, or when the significators have no Aspect to each other, or when it is very doubtful what is promised by square or opposition of the significators, yet if mutual Reception happen between the principal significators, the thing is brought to pass, and that without any great trouble, and suddenly to the content of both parties." (Book I Ch. 19 pg 112)

Later in Book 2 it seems like there are some examples of him putting this into practice, for example when judging a question on obtaining a new job ("Government, Office, Trust..." etc.) he writes, "If the Lord of the 10th receive the Lord of the first or the Moon by any reception, or in any house, the matter will be effected with much content and profit." (CA Book 2, Ch 82 pg 445)

Now sometimes it's hard to know whether Lilly is abbreviating or not - perhaps he meant reception with an aspect but just left it out. However that last quote in isolation does read like he's saying reception alone will indicate the matter is perfected, i.e. the querent gets the job. One possibility, given the preceding paragraphs all talk about ease or difficulty of obtaining the job, is that Lilly is really just talking about ease of obtaining the job and is expecting the reader to know that he would still require an aspect to perfect the matter.

I'd like to contrast this with the instruction from Frawley's Horary Textbook, in which he repeatedly emphasizes that aspects are required to show an event taking place. For example, he says in the chapter on 10th house questions, specifically in relation to the same "Will I get the job?" type questions, "... finding Lord 10 even in the term or face of Lord 1 is a positive testimony: the job likes the querent. We still need an aspect though." (Frawley, Horary Textbook, Ch 23 pg 223 - emphasis added)

To continue with the "Will I get the job?" example, it would seem that Lilly might be saying reception alone can grant the querent the job, while Frawley says that reception is a very positive sign, but an aspect is still required to be able to judge in the affirmative.

What is your experience? Have you ever seen a chart where there was no aspect between the significators, just reception, and the event transpired? I'm also interested in your view of whether Frawley's got the right idea with demanding an aspect for an event to occur.

Thanks in advance

Robert Bailey
_________________
"Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that will be established." Proverbs 19:21

Coming soon:
www.actualastrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would agree with Frawley's take on this, because reception is really detailing how effectively the effects of an aspect will manifest. So it is all about adding to our understanding of the aspect and is pretty meaningless without an aspect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gs53



Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Posts: 97
Location: Beograd

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is example where Lilly was right:

http://fensi88.livejournal.com/22807.html
_________________
Greetings,
Goca
http://www.astrosport07.webs.com/
http://fensi88.livejournal.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Bailey



Joined: 03 Oct 2016
Posts: 17
Location: Canberra, Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Deb and GS, appreciate the fast response.

GS I think the chart you linked to has very strong mutual reception by sign, which is definitely in accordance with what Lilly says in Book 1. Food for thought.

Deb I think you're right, and I have tended to adopt that approach when judging horary questions. I think the quote from Book 2 of Lilly that I provided above does seem to have the sense of informing or describing an implicit aspect - it would certainly make more sense if we read it in that way.

Thanks a lot, this is helpful. I think in my practice, unless there is very strong mutual reception (sign or exaltation) I would require an aspect to judge in the affirmative.

I'd welcome any other views from practicing members too, eager to share.
_________________
"Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that will be established." Proverbs 19:21

Coming soon:
www.actualastrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
felipeastrologo



Joined: 02 Apr 2015
Posts: 225

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dignity shows ability to perform:
Am I or the other party able to meet?

Aspect shows opportunity or occasion:
Are the parties coming together?

Receptions show inclination:
Do the parties want to come together?

Generally speaking, and considering the context, as far as events go those three variables must be adequately in place in order to indicate whether an event will happen or not. Horary is, after all, a reflection of real life.

Common sense goes a long way in technique usage.
_________________
--
Felipe Oliveira
http://traditionalmedicalastrology.org
http://medicalastrologer.net
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Bailey



Joined: 03 Oct 2016
Posts: 17
Location: Canberra, Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Felipe. This is logical and has been my practice to date. It makes me confident that I have been interpreting charts correctly.

It was a recent chart that showed strong reception but no aspect that got me worrying about Lilly's mutual reception rule. But I think I will judge "No event" given our discussion here as the chart has no aspect between the significators.

Really appreciate you all taking the time to weigh in!
_________________
"Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that will be established." Proverbs 19:21

Coming soon:
www.actualastrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be clear Robert, my opinion isn't formed to disagree with Lilly, but based on my understanding of what Lilly intended. Beside that first quote, Lilly's examples demonstrate that the aspectual connection of significators is the key issue. Mutual reception might add or take away a little, but is rarely meaningful by itself. Generally, Lilly is considering how an aspect is received - so when one planet applies to another, the concern is whether the planet it applies toward will receive it. That is what Lilly refers to in the passage you quote from book 2 - he is not talking about mutual reception here:

Quote:
Later in Book 2 it seems like there are some examples of him putting this into practice, for example when judging a question on obtaining a new job ("Government, Office, Trust..." etc.) he writes, "If the Lord of the 10th receive the Lord of the first or the Moon by any reception, or in any house, the matter will be effected with much content and profit." (CA Book 2, Ch 82 pg 445)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Bailey



Joined: 03 Oct 2016
Posts: 17
Location: Canberra, Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2016 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Deb, yes I understand your point and agree that makes sense.

I re-read Chapter 82 of CA, and even though an aspect is not mentioned in the paragraph I quoted, it seems to be implied, given the preceding paragraphs in that section are all discussing the relationship between planets in aspect.

So I now thoroughly agree that an aspect is implied in that section.

This is the danger of viewing parts of traditional source texts out of context! Lesson learned Smile
_________________
"Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that will be established." Proverbs 19:21

Coming soon:
www.actualastrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You seem to have got it quite quickly Very Happy
It took me a while; I still find Goca's example above quite interesting.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7214&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=mutual+reception
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated