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:
Book III of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Notes on Dorotheus III: the haylāj, Kadhkhudāh, and terms of life
by Deborah Houlding
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Lots combust?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1360

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I feel compelled to point out that Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a grocer, has mercury, lord of MC, combusted in Libra, fall of sun.
_________________
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: 672
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
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 Smile 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.


Digging around I have found what bothered me about the assertion that the exaltations came from Bablyonian origin. The bit nisriti (or secret places) do not match up to the example charts where exaltations should have been found:

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/11/16/the-questionable-origins-of-the-exaltations-in-astrology/

Given as I stated before, that the Thema Mundi pretty much locked in the arrangement of concepts in a schematized manner that makes it fairly obvious when an astrological concept falls out of place, is there some other rationale other than the "secret places" that can account for the exaltations coming from Babylonian origin?
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ile



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 129

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi all!

It is very interesting subject from one side, but from the other side it is one of those subjects which leads to the battlefield of opinions of 'to burn or not to burn that is the question', the famous doubt of Hamlet.

I think that Venus in 25, Sun in 29 Libra, she will push her chariot's power to the Sun, it is like a host excepting the King in its home, even though the King is not feeling quite well in that place.

But the thing is that Venus will not reach the Sun in Libra; Sun would already be in Scorpio when she'll make exact conjunction with it, and this is not a perfect reception. What she offers to push to the Sun, is not being accepted for the mere reason that Venus is no host of Sun anymore when this happens, host becomes Mars and Venus will be in detriment there. What she can offer to the Sun in Scorpio is debility.

This is for the reception thing in this particular example offered in the beginning of the discussion here.
As for 'whether the Lot can be combust', I recently thought it can't. But than Abu Ali surprised me that he would not ignore the fact that the Lot is combust or "under the Sun's beams".

In "On Judgments of Nativities", in chapter 29 of Dykes translation in Persian Nativities I, where Abu Ali speaks about the religion of the native, on the Lot of Faith he says:

Quote:
"But if it were with the Sun (not, however, being under his rays), the native will be wise, esteeming (his) name and a good reputation)"


It is supposed that "On Judgments of Nativities" is a book made out of the notes which Abu Ali scribed listening (or reading) his master Masha'allah.
So, these Persian astrologers would notice if the Lot is under the beams of the Sun, just the same as they would notice if some planet is under the beams of the Sun.

But as in the case of the planets, I don't think that the lot will be inoperative. I think it would be "at leisure", as Robert Schmidt translated the Greek word "achrematistikos". What this means?

Speaking about the places conducive to business, Serapio not only that divided the Places conducive (chrematizos) to business, but also a conditions when a planet is conducive to business, that is, when it makes appearance for example.

So, making an appearance is similar to, as a planet is getting out of its "leisure", out to conduct its business. Being "at leisure" does not mean that the planet will do nothing, but will do less probably, as a lazy man drinking beer and watching football games, he can do some things (like drinking beer lol), but his laziness is limiting him.

Abu Ma'shar in Libri Mysterium gives interesting metaphor:

Quote:
"When Venus is free from the sunbeams, it is like a woman who being already subjected to needs and to torments and to diseases, recovers health;"
(Bezza/Dudziak translation).

So, going out of the Sun's beams is like a 'recovering'. Like the football players after an injury, they are making some cardio trainings while they are injured, but when they are fully recovered, they are prepeared for business (game).

Ptolemy advises us to look at the planet which makes an appearance by transit, telling us that these planets brings "intensification" of the things.

But why would the lot be capable of being burned just the same as the planet?
I suppose that this is a matter of visibility. The lot is not visible to the other planets to conduct a business, to make interactions, and being regarded.

Lots are mathematical derivations, and has numerological value. They are not real physical astral phenomena like the planets and fixed stars.
Therefore the naturalists from the renaissance questioned the usage of them.

Houses are also mathematical divisions of the sky around us, but we can see how Schoener looked at the close aspects which planets make to the house cusps. So, we can see that the old astrologers would look at interaction between the real astronomical phenomena and the derivative or mathematical one. If the Lot can be aspected badly, why would not be influenced by the Sun's beams too? If a planet can be influenced by the beams, the lot can be influenced too.

I'm a believer that astrology is a kind of philosophical language which is translated from the astronomical phenomena, with a doze of mathematical-numerological (Pythagorean if you like) usage of number. The interactions of the real astronomical phenomena and the number or derivative numerological phenomena exist on a very subtle level, which these ancients noticed, acknowledged and used.

So yes, I believe that a Lot can be combusted, and this will make him "at leisure", not so operative, or intensive (or Loud if you like), as if it were free from the Sun's beams and visible.

These are just my thoughts.
But there are so many more experienced astrologers then me here, and I may be wrong. These were just my philosophical ramblings Smile

Best,
Ile
_________________
My personal blog:
http://beyondtheheaven.wordpress.com/
-------
"Iunge testimonia & iudica ex superabundanti" ~ Cardano
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
lihin



Joined: 14 Dec 2009
Posts: 470
Location: Mount Kailash

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:28 pm    Post subject: Use of lots summarised by Robert Zoller Reply with quote

Good afternoon,

Robert Zoller, one of the outstanding Mediaeval astrologers alive and author of excellent courses on it found here:

http://www.new-library.com/info/courses+74.html

published an entire book on the lots in 1989:

The Arabic Parts in Astrology: A Lost Key to Prediction

The first chapter alone, in which the author derives the planetary qualities from the monad, is in my humble opinion already worth the entire book. Mr Zoller did not attribute 'heat' to Zeus. We might recall that the Dorothean triplicity rulerships are based on earlier Stoic philosophy of elements (Fire-hot, Air-cold, Water-wet, Earth-dry), not on Aristotelian ones of the later Mediaeval tradition that qualifies e. g. Air as warm and moist. The first review at Amazon by Mr Kristopher Streeter is insightful. Were Mr Zoller to publish a second, revised edition, he would probably apply several of Mr Streeter's suggestions.

In his book and in his "Foundation Course" Mr Zoller emphasises that lots are NOT meant to be used stand-alone, but only as a last step in methodical house delineation.

Concerning lots' possible combustion and under Helios' beams, 'One Mediaeval author does not consensus make.' Who has tested this in many charts and can report on findings?

Best regards,

lihin
_________________
Non esse nihil non est.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
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