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:
A Correct Prediction: the NYC buiding strike, 1991
by Robert E. Zoller
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven, by David W. Pankenier
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Will my daughter Amelia get the job, yes or no?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 998

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiko wrote:

Look at Lilly's "Should I buy Mr. B's houses" -- L1 (Venus) is in her Detriment applying to conjunction with the Sun (Venus also tehnically being combust along the way). So the Sun which signifies the seller (according to Lilly) and also being L11 is in Venus' Detriment and in conjunction with Venus.

Yet Lilly thinks "[...]finding, I say, my Significator received of Sun, and so neer to the cusp of the Angle of the West, it was an argument I should proceed further in the matter, notwithstanding Venus her many Debilities; [...]"

So even though the Sun is in Venus' Detriment, it is good to be received by the Sun.

...

So my point is, planets in the Detriment or Fall do not always destroy the matter propounded. To be fair, I presume Bonatti did not intend this to be a strict rule but you cannot say that the answer is NO because of the Sun's Detriment.



Sorry Seiko but I'm totally confused by this.

I don't know whether one of us is getting Bonatti's idea regarding aspects from detriment wrong or not or I'm just confused in the exmaple you gave.

You say that in Lilly's chart that because the sun is in the detriment of venus, that it didn't destroy the matter.
But where I'm getting confused is in why you would think that it would. That is not what I understand Bonatti to be saying.
You say "So even though the Sun is in Venus' Detriment, it is good to be received by the Sun." but nobody, Bonatti included, thinks it's bad for a planet to be received. But we also have to ask, good for who? Here we have an exalted Sun who receives Venus who is herself debilitated. Venus however will not receive the sun and is instead harmed by the sun because she applies to a place of her own debility.

But let's imagine it differently, let's say the Sun was not in any of its own dignities but venus was applying to the sun, which is in some other place that venus has detriment, so let's say the Sun was in Scorpio instead. The matter would be utterly different. Instead we'd have venus applying to a planet in it Venus' detriment (like in Lillyl's chart) and therefore being caused harm by that (which is what Bonatti is highlighting) only this time the Sun wouldn't offer its protection to venus (like it does in Lilly's chart), because the Sun would not be receiving venus (which it is in Lilly's chart).

That's what reception offers: ease and protection. So a planet which is received is protected from harm by the planet which receives it. In this case with the Sun in Aries we have Venus applying to the a planet in the place of her detriment and she is willfully harmed by that aspect. However the sun also offers its protection to Venus because he receives her and so the damage and harm is mitigated by this reception. So in some respects we might see this as a cancelling out, but it is absolutely not comparable to the example that Bonatti uses, because in his example we do not have reception, we just have this "anti-reception".

In other words what Bonatti is describing is the opposite of reception. I know there's a lot of debate about anti-reception and so forth, but for me there is clear indication in the tradition, not just in Bonatti but in older astrologers as well, that a planet applying to another from the place of that other's detriment will be harmful to the other planet or will not be accepted. It's basically the very opposite of reception.

We must also remember the concept of classical reception which is where the quicker moving planet applies to the slower one and as the quicker one is in the dignity of the slower one, the quicker one is received. Bonatti sticks with this example for this anti-reception where he says that say the Sun is in Aries and applies to Saturn, then the Sun, the applying planet, being in the detriment of Saturn, would not be received by saturn, in fact it would be 'anti-received', by Saturn. Saturn as the slower planet, has that option, the Sun wants the aspect to perfect and pushes its light to Saturn who can then either accept the light, receive it, or reject it. Saturn would try to impedge or reject the light because to do otherwise would harm it, much like if it accepted the light from a place where it had dignity it would be all the better for it.

Now Bonatti also goes further and says that even if there is reception, Saturn still tries to block it. In other words even though the Sun here would receive saturn, the fact that Saturn 'anti-receives' the Sun, Saturn will try to not let the aspect perfect, after all to do perfect would be harmful or detrimental to Saturn (and saturn is the slower planet).

in fact Bonatti makes this so explicit that he actually (as is his style) verbosely goes ahead and lists the rule explicitly for every single planet.

But let's look at our Lilly example to see why this is not a completely appropriate comparison. We do not have a swift moving planet applying to the slower one from the detriment/fall of the slower one - which is what Bonatti describes ad nauseum.

Instead we have classical reception - a swift moving planet applying to a slower one from the exaltation of the slower one. So the Sun recieves venus - this is just straight forward classical reception. Bonatti example has a quick planet applying to a slower one in the detriment of the slower one, this chart has it applying to a slower one from the exatlation of the slower one, hence the major difference.

However, from Venus' (Lilly's) position, if the perfection occurs, then the Sun, being in the place of his detriment, would mean that LIlly would be harmed by the perfection and should reject it. Should reject it. Should. But as venus is the quicker planet and the most keen we can see that although it should reject it, it clearly isn't and is stumbling on into an aspect that would harm it, so should definitely reject it.

He doesn't and although the reception of the Sun allows for the sale to go through, Lilly comes out of the procedure much the worst for wear - the anti-reception of the sun damged and debilitated him in the exact way that Bonatti describes. Now luckily for Lilly a lot of the harm is mitigated by the reception of the Sun. Without that reception I'm sure things would have ended a lot worse for Lilly.

Also remember that in Bonatti's example of Saturn trying to reject the Sun, that is because Saturn is the superior planet and has the luxury of accepting or rejecting the aspect if you see what I mean. So because the sun wants to push its light to Saturn, saturn who doesn't want it, will reject or try to impede it.
In our example however, venus is the swifter and more keen planet, so isn't going to try to reject the Sun, but it should reject the sun because it will hurt her. So if were the horary astrologers and Lilly came to use we'd all tell him no. Don't pursue the matter because you'll be harmed.



(sorry I edited this a couple of time to make sure it all made sense. I think it does now)


Last edited by Paul on Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 998

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding the point about Lilly inventing these rules and seeming to change them at a whim, I don't think that's a fair criticism of him. I think he seems to for the most part uses a pretty straightforward logic that makes a great deal of sense and I don't know where he makes it up as he goes along as is suggested.

I'm not the biggest fan of Lilly tbh but I don't think this would be a valid criticism of his. I do think though that Lilly can be somewhat awkward with how he phrases things and I definitely think his technical descriptions could be a hell of a lot clearer, but thankfully he offers tonnes of examples so by example we can normally see what he means in the end. But if we were to mine quotes from CA we'd come away with little to no understanding of what was meant a lot of the time, I think CA is the kind of book that only through reading and understanding his examples do you really see what he means, whereas other authors focused on perfecting the explanation of the 'rules' and the theory and offered fewer examples.

My guess is that Lilly was very much a practical person and not as interested in verbose explanations of theory, but wanted to cut to the chase and demonstrate by example. His explanations about reception for example would have anyone coming away thinking that the only kind of reception was mutual reception - so these technical definitions leave a lot to be desired. But his examples are really the gold dust of CA, without them the book would be next to useless, but without the theory I still think CA would be invaluable just because we have a working astrologer's case notes as it were and his examples and rationales for all kinds of questions - something which is pretty much missing in the majority of horary authors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
So in some respects we might see this as a cancelling out, but it is absolutely not comparable to the example that Bonatti uses, because in his example we do not have reception, we just have this "anti-reception".


"Just as, for example, the Ascendant was Leo, and the question was about a marriage, whether it would take lace or not, and the Sun is joined with Saturn or the Moon (which signifies women) from Aries, which is the detriment [fall] of Saturn. Even if the aspect (however great in itself) is with reception, Saturn however will not perfect the matter, but rather impedes it so that is does not perfect - he not only impedes, but tries to destroy it if he can."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:

But let's look at our Lilly example to see why this is not a completely appropriate comparison. We do not have a swift moving planet applying to the slower one from the detriment/fall of the slower one - which is what Bonatti describes ad nauseum.


How about the Sun in Aries in aspect with Saturn? That's exactly what's happening in Lilly's example.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From CAII, page 220:
"[...] besides, Venus was Applying to a Trifle of Saturn, Lord of the 4th, viz. the houses enquired after, and had no abscission or frustration ere the perfect aspect; a main strong argument I should buy the houses: and indeed both Significators strongly applyed to a Trine aspect viz. Saturn and Venus, for Saturn is Retrograde: I also considered the Sun was in perfect Trine with Saturn, the Sun being, as I said, Lord of my 11th, and he of the 4th; Saturn has also signification of me, as Querent, because he beholds the Ascendant, and therein has exaltation: now whether you consider him, as having Dignities in the Ascendant, or as Lord of the 4th, the Lord of the 11th and he Applying unto each other by a Trine, argued, assuredly I should proceed further in the matter, and in the end conclude for them: [...]"

So both sigs i.e. Venus and the Sun (both swifter than Saturn, in Saturn's Fall) "strongly applyed" to a Trine aspect with Saturn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 998

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiko wrote:
Paul wrote:
So in some respects we might see this as a cancelling out, but it is absolutely not comparable to the example that Bonatti uses, because in his example we do not have reception, we just have this "anti-reception".


"Just as, for example, the Ascendant was Leo, and the question was about a marriage, whether it would take lace or not, and the Sun is joined with Saturn or the Moon (which signifies women) from Aries, which is the detriment [fall] of Saturn. Even if the aspect (however great in itself) is with reception, Saturn however will not perfect the matter, but rather impedes it so that is does not perfect - he not only impedes, but tries to destroy it if he can."


Right Bonatti is saying that even with reception that Saturn tries to destroy the aspect - I already focused on why, saturn is the slower planet. It is the planet being applied to. Will it accept that light? No, it will try to impede or reject it.

That's not the case here, the slower planet is actually RECEIVING the applying planet, even if the applying planet is in anti-reception with who it applies to. So it's not the same as in Bonatti's example.

Though with the example we have which would be similar to Bonatti's example of it happening with reception, venus woudl try to destroy the aspect and even the sun's reception cannot help it, but again remember which planet is the one being applied to. It's not quite the same as Bonatti's example.

Quote:
So both sigs i.e. Venus and the Sun (both swifter than Saturn, in Saturn's Fall) "strongly applyed" to a Trine aspect with Saturn.


Yeah, this is where I would disagree with Lilly tbh to some extent. I disagree with his conclusion at least, namely that "blah blah blah assuredly I should proceed further in the matter, and in the end conclude for them"

I really don't think so. I would have advised not to pursue the purchase. I get that he's saying that his ascendnat, even if not his ascendant lord, beholds Saturn and is the exaltation of saturn, so I guess we can see some mitigation of the neglectful influence of the poor aspect between venus and saturn, but tbh I think Lilly was being optimistic here. I think his emotions clouded his judgement to some degree.

I should point out I'm not necessarily defending Lilly here, I'm certainly not someone in the William Lilly fan club, I prefer Bonatti or some of the older astrologers, but generally I think he's not really going against what Bonatti was saying. I think Lilly is great and we can all learn a great deal from him but that's not to say we should ignore every other astrologer either.

My reading of the chart would be this - chances are you really want the house - you are in the seller's house and sign and damaging yourself by doing so. Worse you are applying to a planet that is in your detriment so will damage you over all, luckily the sun receives you so you will be salvage a lot from this and not be utterly ruined. However you won't come out of it unscathed.

At the same time I think that Bonatti downplays to get the point across that reception cannot necessarily save the day as it were. That in his example saturn will still TRY to destroy the perfection - not that it will automatically, just that it will try to. In other words if Saturn is another person and you are trying to do business with them, they won't want to do business with you. If it's in the power of the planet to not perfect, it will do so. Not that the perfection is automatically written off as impossible.

Anyway that's just my understanding of it and certainly how I use it. I will try to find other sources if you like that discuss this other than Bonatti because ultimately I'm a big fan in not making any one particular author a 'sacred cow' that has all the answers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I 'countered' Janis' post with Lilly's example because everyone knows it and it has some weight -- as opposed to me saying "nah I disagree" - just like you're saying you disagree with Lilly's conclusion etc. I thought using Lilly's example would be a good idea. I guess it wasn't.

Just for the record, I admire Lilly for what he was and what he did but I'm not using CA as a pillow at night or anything. I disagree with a number of things. But, to be fair, Lilly never said he was perfect or anything, he was a Student of Astrology and so are we.

Look, the point is, arguing about technicalities is pointless without the context. Combustion is destructive -- or it can be beneficial if you want to keep something under wraps. Reception offers protection -- unless you're in the sign of your enemy which means you're screwed. Etc etc

And even though I do admit that I've been guilty of doing just that (posting some definitions etc), I think we should stop doing that and focus on the given chart without quoting the ancient Arabs and then arguing about what exactly they meant by that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clinton Soule



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 471
Location: Reno, Nevada

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

handn said:

Quote:
Firstly, I am annoyed with you for talking around me as if I don't exist rather than directly addressing me. It's disrespectful, but it's also unnecessary since I am a regular poster here and have been for about two years.


Dear Forum Member Handn, I have noticed many on all types of various Forums seem to get anoyed from time to time by what the other has said. Yet *If* they were setting in a coffee shop and discussing subjects, reading gestures, and in the imediate present there might not be any problem.

I'm Not here to offend anyone, but unfortunately I can't have a talk with the Creator of our precious zodiac and pray that I can get a different 3rd house and a different Lord and more sensitive aspects where I can *Please* everyone.

There are some zealous, strong, and Mars-like posters on this Forum, and I love who they are; wouldn't move their chart positions if the Creator would let me! Laughing

Not meaning to offend but I'm Not one that could function blind-folded and work in a china shop as far as my verbal nature! crying crying

Appreaciate your work Handn, and I'll try to be more considerate of others whom may be more subjective than empirical or have more mutability or common signs than I do; but I'm Not signing up for any sensitivity sessions or enrolling in a class to soften up my style!

Keep up the good work!

Clinton Garrett Soule
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3866
Location: England

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was glad to see Tanit give a reminder about the need for non-antagonistic attitudes in another horary post overnight. It has been bothering me lately that there have been a lot of horary posts where someone expresses a view in a way that seems to want to slap someone else down rather than offer suggestion and helpful advice. It has been going on throughout this thread, although thankfully, the later posts suggest the issues have been aired and resolved. Two points to remember - no one has to comment on any chart unless they want to, so if you feel that the chart, it's basis or its construction is not to your liking, say something constructive, or in a way that is helpful, or don't say anything at all. The same applies to opinions you disagree with. Secondly, anyone who joins this forum has acknowleged this one overiding policy:

Quote:
1) Most important - be respectful to other members. Remember that this board is public so you should avoid posting comments that could cause offence or be generally construed as objectionable in content or tone. Memberships are suspended and then cancelled if this foremost policy is ignored.

There are some other, very good guidelines offered on this page.
Clinton, though it's not a 'biggie', check out policy no.7, which I don't think you are aware of Smile

I don't feel able to evaluate what has gone on before. This is the point from which I am asking posters to stop and think about the impact of their words, and how they might prevent new horary astrologers from feeling that this is a safe and pleasant enviroment to discuss and develop their understanding of certain horary points (and experiment with things, and make mistakes).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 998

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiko wrote:
I 'countered' Janis' post with Lilly's example because everyone knows it and it has some weight -- as opposed to me saying "nah I disagree" - just like you're saying you disagree with Lilly's conclusion etc. I thought using Lilly's example would be a good idea. I guess it wasn't.

Just for the record, I admire Lilly for what he was and what he did but I'm not using CA as a pillow at night or anything. I disagree with a number of things. But, to be fair, Lilly never said he was perfect or anything, he was a Student of Astrology and so are we.

Look, the point is, arguing about technicalities is pointless without the context. Combustion is destructive -- or it can be beneficial if you want to keep something under wraps. Reception offers protection -- unless you're in the sign of your enemy which means you're screwed. Etc etc

And even though I do admit that I've been guilty of doing just that (posting some definitions etc), I think we should stop doing that and focus on the given chart without quoting the ancient Arabs and then arguing about what exactly they meant by that.


Agreed.

I guess I was reading it more in the context of some of the other posts prior to that which alluded to the idea that Lilly was all but making it up as he went along kind of. Whilst I think Lilly was a bit optimistic with his judgement here (and I wasn't aware of it before you highlighted it btw so thank you for that) I don't think it was completely ignoring what Bonatti was mentioning either. I guess that's the only point I wanted to make.

I think you're dead right about focusing too much on specific technical definitions though. Ultimately I think the end result reflects the chart either way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
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