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

Sun opposition or square similar to combustion?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Night Sky



Joined: 13 Sep 2008
Posts: 127

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:58 pm    Post subject: Sun opposition or square similar to combustion? Reply with quote

Is there anything to this statement? I think I remember reading something akin to this somewhere sometime, but I can't be sure if it's got anything to it or not.

Obviously the square or opposition to Mars or Saturn is taken in the same light as the conjunction... so I was wondering if the Sun in opposition or square could be considered as a drawback in the same way as the conjunction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 990
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't take it in the same way. Combustion interferes with the ability of the planet to produce it's effects (which is not the only thing that can interfere - there are several factors to consider). A planet in the first square is actually quite powerful because it is oriental, but in the latter square, it is waning in power. Typically a planet opposite the Sun is retrograde, and this too is a sort of interference. If one takes the opposition to be in the nature of Saturn and the squares to be of the nature of Mars, a retrograde is this sort of hindrance where a planet is not able to produce because it is subtractive in numbers (or stumbling backwards). But the first square is where a planet is young in the cycle and still vigorous (like Mars) up until first station. When it passes the retrograde period of middle age, it gains a second wind, but with less power, up until old age where it disappears into the rays of the Sun where it can't be seen anymore (symbolic of death and renewal). There are said to be exceptions to these conditions of combustion, such as the "being in ones own chariot" that Schmidt speaks of...
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the one hand, I don't agree with Schmidt, because combustion is an observational phenomenon, not so much a geometrical (is that the term I'm even looking for? philosophical, perhaps?) one.

On the other, and it may just be letting my emotions get the better of me, when I've seen charts with say a combust Venus, and Venus is at 1 Taurus and the Sun is at 29 Aries (I've had more than a few of them), I'm awfully, awfully glad the planets aren't the other way around.

Anyone else get that, or is it just me?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 990
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivia wrote:
On the one hand, I don't agree with Schmidt, because combustion is an observational phenomenon, not so much a geometrical (is that the term I'm even looking for? philosophical, perhaps?) one.

On the other, and it may just be letting my emotions get the better of me, when I've seen charts with say a combust Venus, and Venus is at 1 Taurus and the Sun is at 29 Aries (I've had more than a few of them), I'm awfully, awfully glad the planets aren't the other way around.

Anyone else get that, or is it just me?


When a planet is at 1 Taurus and the Sun is at 29 Aries, both Venus and the Sun are "in their own chariots". Schmidt says that this saves Venus from combustion. If you disagree with Schmidt here, then you are essentially saying that it doesn't matter where Venus is by sign and it is still combust. If you don't know what he's said and haven't been to his workshops, how can you form an opinion on what he's said?
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The alchemist



Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 132

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
When a planet is at 1 Taurus and the Sun is at 29 Aries, both Venus and the Sun are "in their own chariots". Schmidt says that this saves Venus from combustion.


Interesting. Has anyone else observed this? If it's true, then I suppose it's because the King needs plenty of room and won't hurt anyone that doesn't "trespass" on his space, so to speak... :-)


@Night sky: no, an opposition or square to the Sun could not be considered as a drawback in the same way as the conjunction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
Olivia wrote:
On the one hand, I don't agree with Schmidt, because combustion is an observational phenomenon, not so much a geometrical (is that the term I'm even looking for? philosophical, perhaps?) one.

On the other, and it may just be letting my emotions get the better of me, when I've seen charts with say a combust Venus, and Venus is at 1 Taurus and the Sun is at 29 Aries (I've had more than a few of them), I'm awfully, awfully glad the planets aren't the other way around.

Anyone else get that, or is it just me?


When a planet is at 1 Taurus and the Sun is at 29 Aries, both Venus and the Sun are "in their own chariots". Schmidt says that this saves Venus from combustion. If you disagree with Schmidt here, then you are essentially saying that it doesn't matter where Venus is by sign and it is still combust. If you don't know what he's said and haven't been to his workshops, how can you form an opinion on what he's said?


It's not that, Curtis, and Schmidt isn't the only one who says it. It's prominent in Rhetorius and a number of other Greek writers. I'm more influenced by the Persians than the Greeks, but the Persians were very heavily influenced by the Greeks, so...

Again, I'm just wondering - it may be a completely emotional reaction on my part, but I have seen a lot of charts with combustions like that and been happy that it wasn't the other way round.

As far as I can tell, and it's only a personal theory because I haven't seen like a THOUSAND charts to back it up - when the combustion falls that way, it seems (I said seems, I draw no firm conclusion) to let the planet function as something of a universal significator - though it still seems to get crisped in its role as the significator of a specific house.

So far as I know this is not in any text, so it's probably outside the purview of this forum, but has anyone else seen a lot of like combustions and come to any tentative conclusions about them?

It may be similar to the idea that no planet falls in Leo (the Sun's natural house) because the generosity of the Sun simply will not allow it to happen (I do understand that that's a metaphor). Yet the point stands.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 990
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olivia wrote:

It's not that, Curtis, and Schmidt isn't the only one who says it. It's prominent in Rhetorius and a number of other Greek writers. I'm more influenced by the Persians than the Greeks, but the Persians were very heavily influenced by the Greeks, so...


Which source are you using for this? I have a translation of Antiochus by Schmidt that says this but I have not seen this "between the lines" thinking in the other sources that I've looked at that lists "being in one's own chariot" in the way Schmidt describes. I've seen "being in one's throne" somewhere as well (probably in Holden but I don't remember at the moment).
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 990
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The alchemist wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:
When a planet is at 1 Taurus and the Sun is at 29 Aries, both Venus and the Sun are "in their own chariots". Schmidt says that this saves Venus from combustion.


Interesting. Has anyone else observed this? If it's true, then I suppose it's because the King needs plenty of room and won't hurt anyone that doesn't "trespass" on his space, so to speak... :-)


@Night sky: no, an opposition or square to the Sun could not be considered as a drawback in the same way as the conjunction.


Supposedly the reason Venus isn't burned is because being in a sign with control of its own resources in Taurus, much like being in one's own house, Venus is not peregrine in the desert without resources to protect against the Sun's rays; hence "a covered chariot" with Venus in the shade.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 478

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

To Nighsky:
In general, I think we should not equate different astronomical phenomena as being equal astrologically. We do group different astronomical phenomena under similar astrological significance for ease of learning but the uniqueness of each and every astronomical phenomena should eventually be different in their astrological significance and meanings. Conjunctions are different from squares and they are different from oppositions. Hence, they should be treated differently. However, it is probably still OK to term them all as being "similar" in their quality i.e. giving problems to the planet it (Sun) is in contact with as conjunction (combustion), square and opposition are difficult contacts though they give problems differently. Having said this, many traditonal astologers do not view squares as being intrinsically "bad" because squares by benefics can still be good especially if there is reception - the cliche "it depends" applies.

The synodic cycle of Sun-Planet is different from the synodic cycle of Planet-Planet, say Mars-Saturn. One reason that can be thought of is the fact that the conjunctions of Sun-Planet can never be observed visually. The synodic cycle of Sun-Planet also gives the "phase" of the planet viz. combust and/or under the beams, retrograde, stationed, etc. In fact, the phase of the fixed stars (synodic cycle of Sun-Fixed Star) are also determined from their relative positions from the Sun. Hence, the synodic cycle of Sun-Planet is treated differently then the Planet-Planet synodic cycle though they still go through the same configurations (conjunction, sextiles, squares, trines and opposition).

One interesting thing to note in Bonatti's Liber Astronomiae is that there are two conditions (out of three) that are considered really debilitating for a planet to have that are due to planet's relative position to Sun viz. combust and retrograde. Other astrologers seem to point to combust being the worst debilitating condition a planet could have (though I myself disagree). We have had many discussions on the efficacy of combustion and conditions that can mitigate or even annul combustion in other threads.

The Sun never has to suffer the two debilitating conditions mentioned by Bonatti (and other astrologers) viz. combustion (the Sun can't combust itself!) and retrogradation (the luminaries never retrograde). This simple astronomical fact underscores the superiority of the Sun. The Moon does not suffer retrogradation but can still be combust. Other planets can suffer either retrogradation or combust. The inner planets Mercury and Venus can suffer both retrogradation and combustion at the same time when they are near their inferior conjunctions whereas the superior planets (Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) cannot have both conditions at the same time. These astronomical differences of the planets give interesting astrological meanings to them...

Back to the topic. What does Sun do to a planet in proximity to it? It burns the planet, overpowers it, weakens it, traps it, absorbs its power and hence, its signification, it cleanses the planet, it makes the planet invisible or hidden, etc. I guess which meaning one should take depends on the application and situation. We do this in horary astrology all the time. Examples:
Question of health and significator of the sick person is combust - the person is sick and getting better if the significator is separating from Sun or getting worse if the significator is applying to Sun.
Question of war/legality/relationship - the combust significator is overpowered by the person/entity represented by the Sun.
Question of a fugitive convict - the significator of convict going into combustion is an indication of getting caught (and vice versa).
Examples in natal astrology: Combust Venus (when she signifies marriage) may mean bad marriage or no marriage (drawing on the weakening or burning meaning of combustion) but combust significator of marriage can also mean someone who elopes (drawing on the hidden meaning of combustion). A combust significator of profession but in its own domicile or exaltation may mean a successful "hidden" profession like a successful CIA agent or a profession where the native is truly slave to one but master to none, and so on and so forth.

Observe that all of the above meanings that are associated to combustion cannot be used when Sun squares or opposes the significators.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The alchemist



Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 132

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
Supposedly the reason Venus isn't burned is because being in a sign with control of its own resources in Taurus, much like being in one's own house, Venus is not peregrine in the desert without resources to protect against the Sun's rays; hence "a covered chariot" with Venus in the shade.


So, if Venus were in 29 Gemini and the Sun in 1 Cancer, it would then be considered combust.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was a tough choice but I decided to not start yet another combustion thread combustion from the Sun's point of view.

The talk is always about the planets being burnt, consumed, weakened, etc. by the Sun. What about the Sun? Isn't it possible that the Sun gets something it needs from the planets? The Sun is symbolically associated with kings and leaders. Kings need subjects and leaders need people to lead. Maybe the Sun needs planets to report back to it about what's going on out there, thus educating and strengthening the Sun.

In a natal chart with Sun closely conjunct Saturn the common practice is to see an indication of a likely element of maturity, seriousness or discipline in the chart native. But the traditional treatment of combustion would weaken Saturn so it couldn't provide those qualities. Or does the Sun take those qualities on for itself?

Now, maybe a traditionalist could say that the Sun has been made too universally prominent in all charts due to Sun sign astrology. What, then, of a chart with Leo rising and the Sun conjunct Saturn? Would the traditionalist say that the person does not have an extra dash of seriousness and discipline because Saturn is weakened?

I'm hoping for quotes from ancient and medieval sources.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1394

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, Kirk

yes, Kirk, in natal charts the sun is affected by the conjunction.
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 990
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The alchemist wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:
Supposedly the reason Venus isn't burned is because being in a sign with control of its own resources in Taurus, much like being in one's own house, Venus is not peregrine in the desert without resources to protect against the Sun's rays; hence "a covered chariot" with Venus in the shade.


So, if Venus were in 29 Gemini and the Sun in 1 Cancer, it would then be considered combust.


It will be considered "hidden" either way. The question is whether it has resources to protect itself from getting burned and if Venus is in any of its own places (Domicile, Confines (terms), exaltation (some say trigon also) then it is still "potent" as suggested by Schmidt's recent translation of Antiochus.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The alchemist



Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 132

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:
It will be considered "hidden" either way. The question is whether it has resources to protect itself from getting burned and if Venus is in any of its own places (Domicile, Confines (terms), exaltation (some say trigon also) then it is still "potent" as suggested by Schmidt's recent translation of Antiochus.


It's interesting because according to Hellenistic astrology a planet with essential dignity seems to be able to protect itself from the affliction of combustion, whereas in Hindu astrology, for example, a combust planet loses all essential dignity, as far as I know. Of course, western astrology and Hindu astrology are two entirely different systems of work, yet... it would be great if we could lay down some definite rules based on actual experience and examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yuzuru wrote:
Hi, Kirk

yes, Kirk, in natal charts the sun is affected by the conjunction.


Hi Yuzuru,

Thank you, That does complicate things. It would seem to mean that the Sun isn't all powerful, that dignity can save the planet somewhat, and that Mars handles combustion pretty well.

Maybe I should have posted this to the other current Combustion thread or should have started another one. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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