31
Deb wrote:
By the way, this is only a minor point of disagreement that I have with Curtis but I don't personally subscribe to the notion of planets being protected from combustion or synodic effects within their own 'covered chariots'. A few ancient astrologers spoke about this prospect but many others didn't and it was clearly controversial. The sign rulerships and detriments, exaltations and falls, etc, are developed upon the principles of the synodic cycles, and the synodic cycles of the planets were the first point of astrology, established prior to the 12 sign zodiac.
The first part of this is a little vague because I wouldn't either if it has to do with visibility issues. This is part of the problem: that the concept of combustion is a composite concept and many astrologers don't separate the 2 main components of this idea in their minds.

I believe that the correspondences found in the chart of the Thema Mundi predate the text in bold otherwise it couldn't have fit the exaltations by house so elegantly (with the good and bad places) as well as other concepts such as the joys. This could not be by chance. It would be like a Rubic's cube falling together with all the same colors neatly on one side before understanding the concept of cubed 3's.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

32
Not chance Curtis, I agree - but an extension of it; so it follows the philosophy and is part of it, extending from it rather than predating it. But that's a big subject and I only have little time, so I was a little vague deliberately :) I'm just flagging my disagreement to the point whilst knowing I can't properly justify my disagreement at this time, so that I don't feel obliged to express my disagreement whenever the principle gets discussed in the forum. Hope you understand.

33
By the way, this is only a minor point of disagreement that I have with Curtis but I don't personally subscribe to the notion of planets being protected from combustion or synodic effects within their own 'covered chariots'. A few ancient astrologers spoke about this prospect but many others didn't and it was clearly controversial. The sign rulerships and detriments, exaltations and falls, etc, are developed upon the principles of the synodic cycles, and the synodic cycles of the planets were the first point of astrology, established prior to the 12 sign zodiac. I just thought I would put this on record as I don't intend to contradict those who do accept and use this principle.
Are there links around to anything you've written on this topic?

Thanks,

- Ed

34
I don't think so Ed - there is a lot of material that is going to start filtering out now (for example in journal articles) and I'll be releasing bits on the site over upcoming months, but nothing substantial or particularly informative that I can think to point you to right now.

36
My head hurts.

Thank you for the reply, Deb. I know you have signed off from this thread but I will quote you anyway, with some added emphasis:
The Sun generates and illuminates, but it also receives back. In medieval philosophy on the distribution and descent of celestial light, for example, celestial virtue is considered to be generated by the Sun and then expressed outwards to the planets, each of which has its own essential quality (largely deriving from its relationship to the Sun within the cosmic scheme as it centres upon the earth). So the celestial light that emanates from the Sun is characterised differently as it filters into the celestial influence of each planet. (Celestial light, BTW, is considered to be spiritually imbued and so penetrates into the planet and its body (orb), which is distinct from physical sunlight, which simply bounces off the surface).

This then creates the planetary virtues/influences which intermingle with each other and are brought to each by the focussing power of the Moon. This accepts that synodic conjunctions acts like creative cosmic recharges for planetary energies, and that the Sun acts in a centrally creative role. However, the Sun is still within the cosmic scheme and so not oblivious to the influences that are brought back to it. It?s all about the recycling and dispersion of energy, and it stands up within its own philosophical outlook because this derives from ancient astronomy and became the scientific worldview of medieval natural philosophers.
So I see no problem with the idea of the Sun getting news from the planets, as I wrote earlier. With that news comes insight for the Sun, and in receiving the news and insight from the planet the Sun is influenced. The planets are sent out from the synodic conjunction and through the experience of the orbit they, as messengers, have their own experiences and insight which they bring back to the Sun. In receiving the messages and reports from the planets the Sun is influenced ? and that means that in some way the Sun has been changed. But the Sun is in control by controlling the orbit of the planet, sending the planet out and accepting it back.

For me this means that combustion isn't always as strong as it's made out to be. Horary works easily with an almighty Sun ? and horary is your focus. What really confuses things is that in a natal chart a Sun-planet conjunction is nearly universally accepted as a description of the chart native's personality and qualities ? the planet influences the Sun and alters it. Yet with that same natal chart we can say that the Sun consumes and weakens the planet, and therefore the Sun will have a weakening effect on the houses ruled by that planet. A combust lord of the natal 2nd or 7th house will have a negative effect on those houses, even though the person himself has the qualities of that planet due to the conjunction.

Natal delineation has us going both ways with the Sun. In looking at the personality of the native we tend to see a conjunction with an influenced Sun. In looking at the house rulers we tend to see combustion with a weakened planet.

It looks like the combustion battle is between those who focus primarily on horary and those who spend a lot of time on natal delineation. That's my impression, anyway.

37
Hi Kirk, yeah I am done with contributing thoughts on combustion, and I?ll explain why here whilst balancing that comment about my focus. Although horary is a special area of expertise for me, there is no distinction between my view on this in horary or any other type of astrology. I judge many other types of charts and have probably done as much natal analysis as most other members of this forum, because I?ve been around a while and I do a lot of practical astrology. These principles work; they just have to be properly understood.

When I started out in astrology it was generally taught that principles concerning essential dignities and accidental fortitudes were only applicable to horary, and not natal work and other techniques. (Also that horary wasn?t even ?proper astrology?). I endured a lot of hostility to my ideas when I first started publishing traditional rationale, but now most astrologers can see how bizarre it is to think that the fundamental principles of planetary assessment would be put to use in one branch of astrology but not another. Hence, what you?ve suggested takes me back 20 years.

What I?ve touched upon above is the traditional philosophy, recognised by traditional astrologers of many ages and applicable to all their branches of astrology. So no, I don?t think there is a conflict of view between natal and horary astrology although I think that if someone has a confused view of how the principle manifests it might not be apparent how it upholds in different ways according to different contexts.

I?m not sure why you see this as a ?combustion battle? ? if the principle doesn?t appeal to you then why keep raising it? The Sun is big and almighty ? take a quick look at the sky by day and then look at the difference by night ? everything changes with the presence of the Sun. But I don?t want to knock my head against other heads until they hurt, so I?ll just put my ownstatement of how I see this into something which explains the principle from the ground up, rather than trying to offer it as a twist on what other contemporary astrologers are teaching.

Cheers
Deb

38
Deb,

I love the combustion idea! I want to keep it and use it. I don't know how to do it yet. It does seem to lead to contradictions, as I mentioned. And it clearly is a source of disagreement among people who are very knowledgeable. I do feel that the Sun is in some way 'fed' through combustion, and that tells me the Sun has its needs and vulnerabilities. I need to keep working on it.

Another thought: In our modern secular age we may be tempted to make the astrological Sun a little too God-like. I can't see the medieval astrologers letting such a blasphemous thought creep in. To equate the Sun with God would have been quite a sin. For them there was simply God who was in charge of the celestial and terrestrial realms, so the astrological Sun got to have its weak and vulnerable side, open to influence. Maybe we need to keep pagan theology in mind. Their gods could have weaknesses and vulnerabilities. The Sun of combustion may need the image of a Greek god more than the Christian God.

I just need to keep working through it. I may be an annoyance, but I get frustrated when I read conflicting views stated with strong feelings of certainty.

Thanks, Deb, for taking the time.


Hence, what you?ve suggested takes me back 20 years.
A sort of vanishing cream effect. :???:

40
zoidsoft wrote:
Kirk wrote: The Sun of combustion may need the image of a Greek god more than the Christian God.
God(s) would be more like it. Polytheism was more in back in those days.
That's what I had in mind: an image like one of the Greek gods. :neutral:

41
A sort of vanishing cream effect.
:'

One very last Ps then ... :) Traditional astrologers didn't make the analogy between the Sun and the heart (or the macrocosm and the microcosm) lightly. Think of celestial energy flowing in and out of the Sun and being re-energised by it in the same way that blood flows through the heart and is re-oxygenated by it.
Although it is the heart that refreshes and reactivates the blood, heart needs the blood as much as the blood needs the heart, and the quality of the blood affects the quality of the heart ...

42
Although it is the heart that refreshes and reactivates the blood, heart needs the blood as much as the blood needs the heart, and the quality of the blood affects the quality of the heart ...

Which brings us to the age-old question: What came first, the heart or the blood?



Someone was bound to bring that up.