Pushing Dignity

1
Robert Hand mentioned a concept he termed "Pushing Dignity" that I hadn't heard before, whereby a planet that is debilitated can receive dignity from its ruler if the ruler aspects it and is dignified.

Hand says that the planet becomes dignified via the other, such as in Roosevelt's chart where his debilitated Mars in Gemini Rx receives dignity from his Mercury in Aqu (in triplicity in a night chart), which rules over his Mars.

Hand says that the debilitated planet isn't always functioning properly, it has to be consciously activated by the native. I am wondering if any of you find this to be accurate?

I am a natal Venus in Aries (detriment) conjunct Mars in Aries (dignified, though out of sect), but I wouldn't say that Mars "pushes" dignity to Venus, he is a malefic, so he kinda, well, behaves as a malefic does. My chart is diurnal and Venus is up in the 10th and also oriental, so Venus is completely wrong - no sect, above the horizon with the Sun in the wrong direction, in a masculine sign for a feminine planet, etc. It seems odd to me to say that Mars would give dignity to Venus when the two planets are not similar to one another, so how could Venus behave more "correctly" via the reception/aspect? Wouldn't Venus just receive the conjunction into her detriment?

2
My opinion is that this is partially correct.

To say pushing dignity seems a little bit of a... push in my opinion.

Still, in traditional astrology it is constantly said or hinted that disposition is of great importance. One article by the same Robert Hand might be of interest:

http://www.robhand.com/Matter&FormArticle.htm

Anyway, my point is that if a planet is "matter", it's dispositing planet should be "form". So, even if the quality of the matter is not that good (Mars retrograde in Gemini) the form it takes is (Mercury in Aquarius). It's as if you take a damaged good and fix it through the power of your ability, or knowledge.

Still, that's not always positive. If the matter you have is, say, ruling 12th, and the form it takes is, say, ruling 6th or inside it, it will be problematic, probably even more problematic the more essential dignity the planets have. The mundane placement does define quality, imo. This opinion of mine is controversial and I believe has no ground in ancient literature, but I do believe that just like in the case of triplicity, when you want the malefics in elements contrary to their nature so that they have a mild temperament, depending on the configuration of a chart is better, if you have a cadent malefic ruling bad houses, for it not to be ruled by a dispositor that is too strong (specifically if the dispositor also rules or is inside a bad house, and especially if also a malefic) cause that will give the planet too much power and conditions to exert it's malefic nature.

In the example of your own chart, Mars receives Venus by domicile. So, it is indeed usefull, cause debilitated Venus is without raw power (although she has accidental) to deal with it's own function. So it's up to Mars to take Venusian matters into its hands (meaning, making Venus express herself). Obviously, the general tone of venusian matters will be martial as consequence, but the influence is mutual to some degree (but since Mars is more powerfull, he tramples Venus). Also, since Mars is a malefic, it's manifestation will be that of a malefic in nature, and even if favoring you, it will favor through what Mars is: separations, cuts, fights, competition and so on, and quite efficiently, since dignified.
Last edited by PFN on Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

3
Thanks for your input, PFN. I only have my own experience with this "push" reception aspect, since it is not so common as someone might imagine, and I only just started seeking it out. I now would like to see how it applies in horary...

That is interesting to say that Mars takes the power of Venus into its own hands. I guess it depends much on the planet that has a sort of control over the other too. I always thought that my Mars just exerts too much of itself onto Venus, as you said "trampling" it out almost entirely. Though, it is true that Mars has forced me to come into contact with some Venusian things.

Having a malefic pushing dignity is obviously not so nice as a benefic. :-sk The conjunction might be a bit more taxing for Venus than say a trine, as in Roosevelt's Mercury-Mars case.

4
Hi, it is useful to go the original sources:


from Abu Mashar?s "the abbgreviation of the introduction to astrology", ed. and transl. by Burnett, p. 26

30- pushing nature is if the planet A applies to the Lord (B) of the sign in which (A) is, or in its (B?s) exaltation or in its(B?s) term, triplicity or decan: then (A) pushes the nature of the planet B onto it (B).

31 - Pushing power is if the planet A is in its own house or its own exaltation or the other dignities we have mentioned, and applies to another planet (B): then (A) pushes A?s power onto (B).

32 - pushing two natures is of two kinds. One of them is if the planet (A) is in a sign in which it (A) has dignities, and it applies to another (B) which has dignities in it also. For example venus (A) when it applies to Jupiter (B) from pisces. The second kind is if a diurnal planet applies to a diurnal planet and the two are in a diurnal place, of a nocturnal planet applies to a nocturnal planet, and the two are in a nocturnal place.

33- Pushing councel is when a planet applies to a planet from whichever direction the application is: and if this is from friendship or compatibility or with reception, it is favorable; but if this is from antagonism or enmity, it is the opposite of this.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

6
Hi all,

this is a very interesting topic and I?m also thinking about this for a while.

There apparently exist several versions of the same thing. One of them is the pushing nature as described in Ben Dykes introduction to Sahl & Maha?allah, p. Ixvii. And this pushing nature seems to be the same thing as Bonatti`s committing of disposition, nature and virtue (see Book I, p. 223 of Ben Dykes`s translation) which is also a kind of receiving.

After this explanation, pushing nature (Sahl) or committing disposition (Bonatti) occurs when a planet (A) in the dignity of another planet (B) joins to this planet (B), e.g. Mars in Pieces joins to Jupiter or Moon in Aries joins to the Sun in Gemini.

After Ben Dyke`s explanation this would mean that planet (A) is ?committing what it is responsible for in the chart into the hands of a more powerful person, namely his immediate authority, the one hosting him?. In the above mentioned cases this authority would be Jupiter or the Sun.
But after Bonatti, planet (B) is committing his disposition, nature and virtue to the applying planet (A) (see page 223).

Now, how can one distinguish these ambiguous testimonies or better to ask: how can one unify them/bring them together? Are both ways possible at the same time which would mean that in the case of Moon in Aries applying to Sun in Gemini the Moon would entrust the things she is responsible for to the Sun and simultaneously the Sun is also committing his virtue to the Moon?

Confusion seems to be complete when we compare these doctrines to the one of Abu Ma?shar as also cited by Yuzuru:?Pushing nature is if the planet (A) applies to the Lord (B) of the sign in which it (A) is, or in its (B) exaltation or in its (B) term, triplicity or decan: then it (A) pushes the nature of the Planet (B) onto it (B).?

In the case with the Sun and the Moon this would mean that the Moon is giving the Sun something back from his own nature and virtue and is thus helping the Sun to escape his peregrine position somewhat.

Now, the question is how to apply these doctrines to natal delineation i.e. how do we translate such a constellation into the daily life of the native?