I first learned one-way reception being a planet in the domicile/exaltation/triplicity of another is "loved" by the other planet, or received by the other planet. I then learned that a planet in the domicile et al of another loves the other planet and will receive it.

I know I am not the only person who mixes this up. It's enough to make someone a bit off of of their nutter.

A recent work horary someone asked in another forum comes to mind, with this last transit of the Moon in Capricorn while squaring Saturn. Moon was in a dexter square aspect with Saturn in Libra exalted (though retro of course). Saturn receives Moon into its domicile of Capricorn? Or do I have this backwards? Would you also say that this is helpful for the Moon, since Saturn is a malefic in a dexter aspect and dominating a whole lot?

I suppose the reception idea itself can get confusing! Some say a planet in the domicile of another "loves" that planet (so Moon receives Saturn). Others say Saturn will do no harm to Moon because Moon is in a sign of its domicile (so it receives Moon).

Please help. My Mercury trine Virgo Saturn peregrine brain is stuck on repeat.

There is an article by Deb on this site on reception as used by Lilly, and an article by Sue Ward elsewhere.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception.html

I do not have a solution to all this "Love" pollution in reception but you may find the Lilly's use of reception and aspects in CA-II "Of A Brother That is Absent ," very illuminating.

I suspect that this chapter is the key to Lilly's approach and all flights of fancy of some may have started from an interpretation of this chapter.

PD

Thanks, I am sorry if any of you are annoyed by my post, and I had read this link before, though the concept of "love," as you mentioned, especially confuses me. How each planet looks upon the other, as a soap opera of sorts, I guess. I'm trying to uncomplicate things and make it so I understand each planet's intentions towards each other. Just because a planet has good intentions also doesn't mean it will lend strength, right?

The varying situations especially interest me:
1.) a planet is debilitated and is receptive towards another
2.) a planet is dignified and receptive towards another
3.) a planet is debilitated and not receptive towards another
4.) a planet is dignified and not receptive towards another

So, if the Sun receives a square aspect from the Moon in Leo, the Sun will be receptive to the Moon's interest, even though the aspect is a square which is normally considered difficult.

This quote here especially pertains to the Moon in Cap-Saturn square question I posed, and would state that Saturn is "receptive" to Moon in Capricorn. To say something is receptive doesn't mean that it gives strength to the other planet, it just has some interest in it, right? If Saturn is debilitated, does its intentions become defective at all? And how does the Moon feel about Saturn is the thing?

To be received, or to be given a reception, is akin to being 'accepted' or attended to... She can draw from his strength, and if he is generally destructive she need be less fearful of the prospect of him turning his destructive potential upon her - as a host, his duty is to cater to her needs and to safeguard her interests whilst she is under his protection.

I guess I should just focus on the Venus in Aries to Mars analogy here. But, again, as with the Moon in detriment, I wonder how Venus feels about the situation, since she's in detriment in a sign of Mars.

Anyway, forgive my ramblings...

I'm not really understanding the prevailing "love" concept at all anymore actually. It makes no sense to me. If Venus is in a sign of Mars, most astrologers I have heard say that Venus loves Mars. Well Mars is the one attending to Venus here, so I am not seeing this. If Mars were in a sign of Venus, Venus would be receptive to Mars.

It does make sense that planets in their own domicile love themselves though, since they are receptive to themselves essentially.

Tanit wrote:I'm not really understanding the prevailing "love" concept at all anymore actually. It makes no sense to me. If Venus is in a sign of Mars, most astrologers I have heard say that Venus loves Mars. Well Mars is the one attending to Venus here, so I am not seeing this. If Mars were in a sign of Venus, Venus would be receptive to Mars.

It does make sense that planets in their own domicile love themselves though, since they are receptive to themselves essentially.

You are in good company- think of Lilly

"Which love most, or desire it most.


The Lord of the 7th in the Ascendant, the party desired loveth best: The Lord of the Ascendant in the 7th, the Querent loveth best; and so with the other significators, for those that apply argue most love, &c. The Lord of the 7th in the 7th, especially in one of his owne houses, the party desired is free from love, hath little mind to Marriage, and her Portion is knowne, or the mans.
"

Later,

"If a Marriage shall be perfected or no.

Consider the Lord of the Ascendant and the Moon, these are properly Significators of the Querent; the 7th house and his Lord are for the Quesited.

If the Lord of the Ascendant or Moon be joyned to the Lord of the 7th, in any of the dignities of the Lord of the 7th, and in the Ascendant, 11th or 10th, hardly in the 7th, the querent shall obtaine the party desired.

............

Contrary to all the rules of the Ancients, I have ever found, that when the Lord of the 7th hath been in the Ascendant, the Querent hath loved most, and when the Lord of the Ascendant was in the 7th, the Quesited loved best. "

I wish Middle English was my first language




PD

The Lord of the 7th in the Ascendant, the party desired loveth best: The Lord of the Ascendant in the 7th, the Querent loveth best; and so with the other significators, for those that apply argue most love, &c. The Lord of the 7th in the 7th, especially in one of his owne houses, the party desired is free from love, hath little mind to Marriage, and her Portion is knowne, or the mans.

OK, wait. See this is confusing, and I think where the "love" stuff stems from. [Same thing with 10th ruler in the 1st for a job horary, btw.] If the quesited is in your house, he's in your domicile so you receive him and do no wrong to him. How would that make him be the fonder?

I think we should go by what Lilly quotes as his experience..

At the expense of being labelled a Neo-Traditionalist or worse still - a Modern Astrologer- I will differentiate between "Desire" and "Love"

7th lord in 1st- it is the first who loves the 7th and that is why the 7th lord has been let in.
eg:7th lord in 1st but not in its detriment and still has some Dignity.

7th lord in 1st- it is the 7th lord that is most desirous of this relationship because that is why he/she has gone there.

eg:7th lord in 1st but in its detriment or to its detriment and having little dignity.


-----------------
or,its exact opposite

PD

The 'love' idea of reception would only apply to romance questions. I can't abide how it's been popularised, backwards, no less.

Say that you have Taurus ascendant/Scorpio descendant.

If Venus is in Scorpio, the querent loves the most (let's give it triplicity so it's not entirely debilitated here).

If Mars is in Taurus, then the quesited loves the most.

In other situations, think of reception as a host receiving a guest. If Saturn is in Taurus, then Venus receives it by rulership and the Moon receives it by exaltation. Therefore, Venus and the Moon need to do what they can to help Saturn, or at least not let harm come to it while he's in their sign.

But - if Venus is in Scorpio and not in its own term and doesn't hold triplicity - peregrine and in fall - it's probably not in good enough shape to receive Saturn so may not be able to do anything useful, and if the two are in opposition, it's that much the worse.

If the Moon is in Virgo and is the in sect triplicity ruler, it may be able to provide some fortuitous circumstances for Saturn, because that's what triplicity does.

Being received by a peregrine planet won't help a lot. A planet in fall or detriment may not be in good enough shape to receive, or - the reception may be worthless. Again, we're looking at the planet that's receiving - it has to have some dignity to receive. The planet that's being received doesn't need dignity to be received, but a planet with no dignity is still - a planet with no dignity. It may not have the ability to take advantage of the receiving planet's help.

Other than that, reception by rulership gives a planet a lot of strength. Reception by exaltation and the planet finds things being done for it. Triplicity - fortuitous circumstances. Term - talent or something materially or physically helpful (term is of the body). Face keeps it from being peregrine. And in reality, to have a true reception with lesser dignities, you need two of them - triplicity and term, triplicity and face, or term and face.

That's how I look at it anyway, with love horaries being the special case exception - though if one of the significators is in fall or detriment, there's going to be some kind of snag even if it is in the other person's house.

Since I'm sure that all of us here have read Cristian Astrology, articles here on Skyscript etc. about one zillion of times already and are familiar with the fact that the approaches do vary, with all that we have learnt so far in mind and without quoting anything in particular, i will only share my personal impressions and current approach.
I actually think that examining reception in love questions can be very useful because we can literally translate mutual reception into physical attraction, willingness to form a union or emotional bonds. Personally, I have learnt quite a bit about dignities from such charts .

But, the more I think about it, especially about the double perspective mentioned by Tanit, the less I actually find it confusing. In the end, I usually end up with the conclusion that both the approach in which the planet is received by another if it is inside its terms and the approach that says that a planet is received by the other when the other planet is in its terms (dizzy! ) are basically talking about one same thing. But in order to see them as very similar, it is necessary to accept the aspects as the only possible activators of events or any activity that we are looking for in a chart, in my opinion. And that is how I approach the charts- if the planets are not brought together be it by an applying aspect or by another planet and unless the Moon is really promising- I wouldn't not use any kind of mutual reception to be a sign of perfection. in love charts, in such cases, maybe we are talking about a form of affection but not about perfection ('tho, I am aware that some astrologers would use mutual reception alone as a sign of perfection; I believe in aspects and cannot accept that approach. besides, I have not found it to work in the desired way so far.). BUT, if the planets are, indeed, brought together then both approaches actually work, wouldn't you agree?
Let say that we have Venus in the terms of Mars and Mars in the terms of Venus- once that they are brought together, it doesn't even matter any more if the fact that Venus is inside the terms of Mars means that Venus is interested in Mars or vice versa as we have reception on both sides- mutual reception and the affection is, thus, obviously mutual as well.
Of course, the things do get a bit more complicated when we do not have mutual reception but find it only on one side; if we would need to find out whether one of two persons in a relationship is more more willing to cooperate or to form a union or if we'd need to find out if the person represented by the 7th is in love with the Querent, we'd have to decide as to which approach to take. Personally, I'd go for the traditional version in which the Mars placed inside the terms of Venus is a sign of the affection of the person represented by Venus towards the one represented by Mars - Venus is receiving Mars in her terms. I have checked and double-checked this rule in every single relationship chart that I have seen so far and it hasn't failed a single time. In the most negative charts, where the Querent was completely smitten with another person who had no intentions in forming a relationship with the Querent whatsoever- it was the ruler of the Quesited that was received in the terms of L1. That, and the placement of L1 inside the 7th were unusually strong indicators of a one-way affection.

But, we always have more than one option- the placement of the planet inside a specific house can tell a lot as well; L1 placed inside the 7th in a romance question even when outside the rulership of L7 should be very significant too. Then, we have the swiftness of planets- another good way of determining as to which one of the two is the more active/ardent/interested etc party.
And, finally, sometimes, we don't even need strong reception- sometimes a strong and benevolent aspect can bring about the positive outcome and say a lot about the nature of the contact/relationship alone. If we have a nice uninterrupted trine between the main significators, if they're not peregrine, if the Moon is well placed- we have strong reasons not only to conclude that the positive outcome is possible but also that both parties are very much interested in each other, imho.
And it obviously goes beyond this- I've been struggling with a chart of a female Querent for about 8 months now cast for question about a man whom she had recently fallen in love with; the chart placed her ruler inside the 7th but gave him the swifter planet as his representative, both planets were angular only peregrine, there was no mutual reception and the planets were applying to each other in a square. needles to add, it has been a very, very exhausting period for the qurent as she is still hoping that she might establish the relationship with this man only nothing is really happening but the square, the lack of essential dignities and of mutual reception did not result in obstacles on personal/emotional level but have rather marked this whole last period as very turbulent and they have also "made sure" that the two people come across , on occasions, unimaginable obstacles; but the affection is mutual! In reality!


As for the Moon/Saturn application that you have mentioned, tanit, it is a tricky one as the two planets do not "like" each other and, in relationship charts, this application is anything but welcome most of the times as a combination of these two planets alone is not the ultimate example of a well-balanced relationship and equality. But, if we'd make a parallel with Lilly's suggestion that malefics are not as mean when they operate from their own dignities then it would make sense that they're less malefic towards planets that they receive as their guests (in their dignities). here, of course, we again need to take one side and decide as to which approach we think works better but, if we do assume that the Moon inside the rulership of Saturn is his guest and that, by receiving its application, the Saturn is actually expressing his hospitality, then, this placement could maybe reduce the tension or negativity of the inevitable event promised by the aspect.

pankajdubey wrote:
"Which love most, or desire it most.


The Lord of the 7th in the Ascendant, the party desired loveth best: The Lord of the Ascendant in the 7th, the Querent loveth best; and so with the other significators, for those that apply argue most love, &c. The Lord of the 7th in the 7th, especially in one of his owne houses, the party desired is free from love, hath little mind to Marriage, and her Portion is knowne, or the mans.
"

Later,

"If a Marriage shall be perfected or no.



Contrary to all the rules of the Ancients, I have ever found, that when the Lord of the 7th hath been in the Ascendant, the Querent hath loved most, and when the Lord of the Ascendant was in the 7th, the Quesited loved best. "

I wish Middle English was my first language




PD

PD, I think it is not a question of a special language, Middle (?) English for example , to see the perfect contradiction in your Lilly quotes. Or did I clip something in your comments? May I ask, which of the two quotes is according to the teachings of Lilly in your opinion?

It seems to me to be rather evident that the second quote is dissenting of all other teachings of Lilly as to dwelling of signifcators in houses of the quesited.

To be in a house is no question of Reception by the way becaue a house is not a dignity of a planet . . .

As to receptions it woud be very interesting to know who was the first to brake the rule of the tradition and called the state of being in the debility of a planet to be received by or to be in reception of that planet!

To my knowledge reception is when a planet is in one or more dignities of another planet. The planet was received then by the owner of those dignities. A planet was not at all able to receive in its own debilities another planet. In any case this had not been a case of reception.

Before Lilly there was defined the additional - rather complicated and partly inconsistent - necessity of being in aspects to be called received.

There is still to be mentioned the mutual reception on the same level of digniities and of different dignities.

Lilly was even though perhaps not the first but surely one of them (or was it Dariot?) who let the quesited be brougth to perfection by mutual reception of the planets without any aspects - mutual reception in their own dignities of course!!!

Johannes

@Johannes

I would go with his 2nd opinion.So far, I haven't found anything coming out of 7th lord in the 1st. Often, I have had the suspicion that I was represented more by the 7th house than the 1st house in my relationship horaries.

Zadkiel, in his commentary on Lilly, gives a get out clause for me- the First mover gets the Ascendant-e.g In a job query ,if you take the initiative and apply for a position you are the Ascendant, but if you respond to an advertisement for the job-you are the 7th house.



PD

pankajdubey wrote:@Johannes

I would go with his 2nd opinion.So far, I haven't found anything coming out of 7th lord in the 1st. Often, I have had the suspicion that I was represented more by the 7th house than the 1st house in my relationship horaries.



PD

Thank you, PD

You see, I c'ant agree with you because of my above arguments.

But these are too marvelous, really!

If you would followed Lilly and not his commentator you would not expect

anything coming out of 7th lord in the 1st.

because this dwelling in houses only signifies interests or motivations and is attachment only, having no influence on the perfecting of the matter.

Johannes