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

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



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know the question is not meant for me -- and I hate to keep bugging everybody -- and this is a separate issue -- if the Sun is one of the principal significators, the combustion is not harmful. Otherwise, the poor Sun would not be able to bring anything to pass by conjunction.

Combustion means (1) not visible or (2) overwhelmed, overpowered by someone or something. But it is only effective if the Sun is not one of the principal significators. Like, being overpowered by your enemy, you are not able to get the job. But if the Sun is the job, the job cannot overpower you, you either get it or you don't. You can get overpowered by someone, or some kind of sickness, or an accident -- but not the job itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3931
Location: England

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:
Using the daughter as the 5th/Sun and the job as the radical 10th/Saturn, the applying trine between them seems to suggest she would get the job, but does the Sun's detriment and Saturn being in Sun's fall override that?


Yes, the traditional principle is that Saturn won't respond so positively to a trine that comes from the place of its own detriment. Plus Saturn is cadent, and the Moon is at the end of its sign and applying immediately to the square of Saturn (that hardly ever gives a good answer, or in my experince never); plus the turned signification is bad too. Hope that helps a little, have to be quick as I need to go now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carol



Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 210

Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Deb, you've been great Smile , and I'm sure I speak for all of us seeking to master this ever fascinating art of horary!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Janis Valkovskis



Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 508

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Bonatti on Horary (Treatise 6: On Questions; by Benjamim N.Dykes)

"And you must know that even though I told you that matters are perfected by trine or sextile aspects, you must however understand well: because if [1] the place from which the Lord of the Ascendant (or the Moon) is aspected by the Lord of the quaesited matter (namely by which the matter itself is signified), or [2] the place from which the Lord or significator of the matter is aspected by the Lord of the Ascendant (or the Moon) is [3] the detriment of the one aspecting, the matter is not perfected, even if the aspect is a sextile or trine. 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. And if [the Sun] were joined to [Saturn] from Cancer or Leo, he would do the same, because both of them are his fall. Likewise, if the significator of whatever matter [or the Moon] were joined to the Sun from Libra [which is his descension], or from Aquarius [which is his fall], because then the Sun would not receive any of them, and thus he would destroy the matter and not permit it to be perfected.
Or if he were joined to Venus from Scorpio or Aries or Virgo, or to Jupiter from Capricorn or Gemini or Virgo. And may you know the detriment of whatever planet [you are dealing with]: nor does any aspect suffice (unless reception intervenes], that will break its malice.
And may you understand the same if the significator or the Moon were joined to a planet which is in the detriment of that significator itself (or of the Moon): like if Mercury were the significator, and were joined to a planet which is in Sagittarius or Pisces, or the Moon were joined to a planet which is in Scorpio or Capricorn, or a planet were joined to any planet located in its own descension; or [if] the one who is in the descension of the other, is joined to whom whose descension it is, it always tries to destroy the matter and annul it."

According to Bonatti, in our example it doesn't matter which way you look at the chart - whether the Sun applies to Saturn or Mercury to the Sun, the answer is "No".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 587

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
Code:
Using the daughter as the 5th/Sun and the job as the radical 10th/Saturn, the applying trine between them seems to suggest she would get the job, but does the Sun's detriment and Saturn being in Sun's fall override that?


Yes, the traditional principle is that Saturn won't respond so positively to a trine that comes from the place of its own detriment. Plus Saturn is cadent, and the Moon is at the end of its sign and applying immediately to the square of Saturn (that hardly ever gives a good answer, or in my experince never); plus the turned signification is bad too. Hope that helps a little, have to be quick as I need to go now.


You also have Saturn in first station.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Janis Valkovskis wrote:
From Bonatti on Horary (Treatise 6: On Questions; by Benjamim N.Dykes)

"And you must know that even though I told you that matters are perfected by trine or sextile aspects, you must however understand well: because if [1] the place from which the Lord of the Ascendant (or the Moon) is aspected by the Lord of the quaesited matter (namely by which the matter itself is signified), or [2] the place from which the Lord or significator of the matter is aspected by the Lord of the Ascendant (or the Moon) is [3] the detriment of the one aspecting, the matter is not perfected, even if the aspect is a sextile or trine. 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. And if [the Sun] were joined to [Saturn] from Cancer or Leo, he would do the same, because both of them are his fall. Likewise, if the significator of whatever matter [or the Moon] were joined to the Sun from Libra [which is his descension], or from Aquarius [which is his fall], because then the Sun would not receive any of them, and thus he would destroy the matter and not permit it to be perfected.
Or if he were joined to Venus from Scorpio or Aries or Virgo, or to Jupiter from Capricorn or Gemini or Virgo. And may you know the detriment of whatever planet [you are dealing with]: nor does any aspect suffice (unless reception intervenes], that will break its malice.
And may you understand the same if the significator or the Moon were joined to a planet which is in the detriment of that significator itself (or of the Moon): like if Mercury were the significator, and were joined to a planet which is in Sagittarius or Pisces, or the Moon were joined to a planet which is in Scorpio or Capricorn, or a planet were joined to any planet located in its own descension; or [if] the one who is in the descension of the other, is joined to whom whose descension it is, it always tries to destroy the matter and annul it."

According to Bonatti, in our example it doesn't matter which way you look at the chart - whether the Sun applies to Saturn or Mercury to the Sun, the answer is "No".


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the chart: "Shall I be able to purchase certain Houses?"



As you can see, the Sun is in Venus (L1) Detriment and as Lilly states "in perfect trine" with retrograde, cadent Saturn, L4 (and according Lilly Saturn also represents him because Saturn beholds the ASC), the Sun (and Venus) being in Saturn's Fall.

So everybody hates everybody, Saturn is in a horrible shape, yet Lilly writes "assuredly I should proceed further in the matter, and in the end conclude for them" and everything turned out just fine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3931
Location: England

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, the Sun has no reason to hate Venus, and traditional astrologers didn’t conceive of these sorts of connections in terms of hating or loving but effectiveness, motive and willingness to attend. It’s really a bad idea to take one point like this and imply that Lilly’s judgement hinged on it. It didn’t, and neither should it because all sorts of considerations are involved in the judgement of effectiveness – angularity being one, and the fact that a conjunction gives a more powerful connection than a trine being another. To understand Bonatti’s passage provided by Janis, and how that impacts on the implications of reception, we have to keep in mind Bonatti’s fuller explanation of what reception does – it doesn’t give a ‘yes or no’ by itself, it aids the prospects of the outcome depending on various factors – like what aspect is involved and who is applying to who.

The symbolic use of dignities in this chart is really meaningful and Lilly took full account of it and explained it to us. He was ‘out of hopes’ being in his sign of detriment, but because the application was direct, uninterrupted, angular and received by the Sun by exaltation (along with many other considerations) this contributed to his decision to push ahead. Was he being destructive as Bonatti’s passage suggests? Yes, as he admits, he did himself an injustice, but he was fully resolved to purchase these houses for emotive reasons. One of the motivations he had at that time, when he was moving on from being a servant and had a lowly social status, was to prove that he was capable of being taken seriously enough to purchase the houses that once belonged to his master. He also knew that the Sun being in its own exaltation meant that he was lucky enough just to get this seller to give him the time of day – and he got this because of the reception involved. He also knew that Saturn’s debility was appropriately descriptive of the houses being old and dilapidated. As an astrologer he factored in what the chart had to tell him about his prospects and made a plan for the purchase of astrology, with everything, including the timing of his offer, made with astrological signification in mind.

But look, he didn’t summarise that everything turned out “just fine”. What he said was:
Quote:
… the truth of the matter is, I had a hard bargain, as the figure every way considered doth manifest, and I shall never live to see many of the leases yet in being, expired. And as Venus is in Aries, viz. opposite to her own house, so did I do myself an injury by the bargain, I mean in matter of money.

I had an article published about this chart in the Jun/Jul 2009 edition of the Mountain Astrologer. It shows how this chart has a lot to say about what was actually going on in Lilly’s life at the time this question was asked. As a really experienced astrologer, Lilly was fully informed on the technicalities and rules, but in judgement that only forms part of the process of bringing the symbolism to life. We don’t just look at a chart like this and say “oh everybody hates everybody, why bother?”. Lilly’s life-issue is reflected in this chart, and every element of the symbolism here is rich in detail and deep in significance. The chart as a whole justifies the judgement that he made on it, and the fact that he knew what the chart meant affected the decisions he made on when, where or how to push the matter forward. This is why these charts are so special for showing the traditional practice of horary in real life scenarios – we don’t get that kind of illumination by just totting up points or translating aspectual connections into something that amounts to a simple yes or no.


Last edited by Deb on Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Janis Valkovskis



Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 508

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't see a problem in this chart for the perfection of the matter. If there is a deal, the quaesited is an agreement between the contracting parties. It's a 7th house question.

If there is no deal between the seller and the buyer, the title to the property will never transfer to the buyer. Even if you see that the querent's significator (or the Moon) applies to the lord of the 4th or vice versa (even by good aspect and with reception), it doesn't mean you will necessary get the property if there is no deal.

In this chart we see that Venus is applying to the almuten of the 7th house which is the Sun (exaltation and triplicity). Such Venus's position is indicative of the buyer's desire to make a deal with the seller.
It's right, Venus is ill dignified but angular granting her the necessary power to act.

Approaching combustion cannot be regarded as a debility here, for the Sun is the quaesited. As you have observed for a number of times, otherwise the poor Sun will never get conjuncted!!!

Like Lilly, I would judge that the matter will be perfected when both complete conjunction in Taurus switching the dignities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I meant "turned out fine" as in -- he bought the houses. So it's my bad but that's not the point. The question was "Shall I be able to buy the houses" and the answer was YES. Whether it was a bad decision or not it is another story.

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.


Last edited by Seiko on Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Janis Valkovskis



Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 508

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seiko wrote:

Quote:
So my point is, planets in the Detriment or Fall (of another planet) 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.


I'd like to agree that Bonatti did not mean it as a strict rule, all depends on the context and correct assessment of all indications. I did not mean that the daughter had not got the job because of the Sun, her sig, in Aquarius. This was only one bad chapter from the story.

In questions like this, being in detriment per se means under the power of your competitors. You cannot get what belongs to other, in this case Saturn, who was the lord of the radical 10th (job itself) and 11th (daughter's competitors).

I a weak ago I had a horary when a man asked of his prospects to get a job as a long-distance track driver. The Moon, the ruler of MC (job), applied to Venus, his sig (Libra ASC), in Aries (a movable sign, so appropriate for a track driver) in the 7th house. Both the planets were angular and thus able to act, but I judged that he would not get the job because the conjunction perfects in the house which is adversary to ASC, for it is the house of competitors. It is the same situation as we have here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3931
Location: England

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.


I think we can all agree that points like this are never to be used as 'strict rules'. They are principles. We cannot say that the answer is 'no' just because of the Sun's detriment, but we can be certain that this damages the prospects by describing the querent's position as weak to begin with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seiko



Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 363
Location: Latvia

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
Quote:
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.


I think we can all agree that points like this are never to be used as 'strict rules'. They are principles. We cannot say that the answer is 'no' just because of the Sun's detriment, but we can be certain that this damages the prospects by describing the querent's position as weak to begin with.


I guess we can agree on that one.


==
Well, hopefully we'll get another to-turn-or-not-to-turn chart soon enough. In this one, we can argue for both sides.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clinton Soule



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

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Handn said on Feb. 18th via this thread:

I truly think I'm hearing possibly Virgo strongly here or a 6th house Sun; or simular configurations.

Quote:
What you've done here is put the date into the USA format -- do we really need to point out that the USA format is not shared by all the other 200-ish countries of the globe? Nor is it the formally-agreed international standard. Your altering of Taurus's way of giving the data has introduced confusion, not clarity.

It was obvious from the longitude and latitude that of all Derbys in the list that come up in software (and on astro.com too, which I've just checked), this particular Derby couldn't be in Australia because the latitude stated in the very first post was northern, and it couldn't be in the USA because the longitude was about 3,000 miles away from the east coast of the USA. There aren't that many Derbys to choose from and the majority of them are in the USA. The Derby that is in the UK ('England' isn't really the best wider location to give, since England isn't a sovereign state -- although it's true that software programs vary in how they organise their listings despite their being international agreement on these things and legal norms for official names of sovereign states) is the minority in my software and on astro.com and there weren't any contenders from other Derbys, and the UK one is the only one that logic dictates was even remotely likely to fit the long. and lat. given in the original post at the head of the thread.

You're right about the am/pm being missing, or if it was in the 24hr clock then '1012hrs' would've been a clearer form, however I personally didn't think it was enough of an issue to bring up in such an insistent way since the Asc was given.

As for not giving the State/Province (not 'providence') and Nation-State, if I had a pound for every time a USA-based person assumed that the whole world knows what those two-letter abbreviations mean, and/or omitted the name of the country itself (i.e. 'USA') we all would be very rich indeed.


Handn, wanted to correct this earlier but I thought most understood why I said what I did. When Taurus gave the time minus what half of the day and the asc., all could see the time with the asc., and of course the lattitude and longitude told most the country if they were using astrodienst.

The trouble is, as many have seen is astrodienst is Not the only website where people are posting charts on this forum. It would be great if this was the only site people used and the Liz Greene type wheel done in Regio. But there may be a few out there in cyber land actually calculating from an old Commadore computer(poor folks) from what they read upon this forum.

My only intent was to make it easier for everyone to calculate or view without so much from some who might think a few posting of chart data are quite odd or not very well thought out!

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



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 509

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Clinton

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.

Secondly, in my post to you I said that I thought you had a point, so you have no reason to say that 'most people understood you' as if I didn't understand -- I explicitly said that I did. Other people, though, managed with the data as it was given, but most importantly they managed without needing to raise the point that you made a considerable issue out of, so I'm not sure why you're referring to them at all.

Thirdly, the astro.com atlas isn't the crux of it, although most charts posted here use it so of course it's relevant and that's why I checked it. I checked a few astro-software atlases too and in not one case was it at all difficult to isolate the correct town. More importantly, as I pointed out but which really is the crux of it, a very basic (i.e. school-level, not even trained astrologer-level) knowledge of longitude and latitude was all that was required to know that the place was in the northern hemisphere (which ruled out the Australian Derbys) and wasn't far west so couldn't be in North America (thus ruling out all the other Derbys). By the way, Commodore computers and suchlike were sold around the world outside the USA, so using a USA date format won't help the world achieve clarity, and owning one or not owning one won't avoid needing to know how longitude and latitude work.

Fourthly, please do not ever speculate on what you think you are hearing astro-wise in my posting behaviour, nor astro-psychoanalse/categorise my postings. I have seen you do it several times to people using the horaries they've posted, and I've seen you be wrong several times, but even if you were right it's offensive regardless. I've seen you use it to chide people, and to refuse to hear/trust them, and I find all of that offensive to watch, and bordering on the unethical as an example of astrological practice.

Fifthly, I will clarify -- but this time a good deal more bluntly -- why I posted what I did.

In short, I posted in someone else's defence, because I dislike badgering. I also dislike hypocrisy. As far as I'm concerned, you behaved badgeringly and hypocritically.

You introduced a confusing set-out of data yet had the gall to do it as if you were showing the original poster how to do things right. I cringed, and I despaired. Astrology deserves good training and professional conduct -- we are already a laughing stock in some quarters, for example, being accused of not knowing 12 equal tropical signs from 13 unequal constellations and all that media blether. Call it Virgo or 6th house if you like, but have the decency to call your own behaviour first and foremost, rather than only calling it when someone else does it back to you to make a point.

The reason I used corrections and references to clear formats was because that was what you were doing to someone else. Simple as that.

But you were getting it wrong whilst claiming to be setting clear what was unclear, as if you were 'teaching'' that person the right way to do things. Yet you were in actuality adding confusion, not clarity. If you don't like being corrected, don't correct people.

No-one tried to astrologically categorise your repeated requests for data clarity, or any other part of your posting behaviour. Why are you doing it to mine? (It's a rhetorical question).

You were lecturing somebody who didn't need lecturing -- you'd already made your point. (NB It was clear from the original poster's self-declared rustiness, but also from their forum history, that they weren't a newcomer to astrology.)

Plainly put:

You were telling someone that they weren't right yet you weren't right yourself.

You were telling someone that they weren't following clear formats yet then you yourself set out an unclear format.

In short, you were lecturing someone when you didn't have a clue yourself.

Your habit of pointing to people's horaries and then using them to hammer home how unclear etc the poster is being is particularly objectionable in my opinion. I would find it uncomfortable if anyone did that, but -- and here I'm being very blunt -- you are consistently one of the most unclear posters on the forum, so when you start telling other people, backed up by their horary charts which they have trustingly brought here for us to comment on, that they're not being clear, or honest, and so on, it's hypocritical.

I usually avoid whatever you post, no matter the topic or forum section. Since you've shown me the same disrespect that you've shown other posters on here, and since you've shown that you're ignorant about your own shortcomings yet are persistent in pointing out what you perceive to be other people's, and since you've shown that you'd rather try to focus on my behaviour when all I was doing was copying yours and applying it back to you, I'll be sticking with my own advice to myself in future.

In closing, I wholeheartedly apologise to the other forum users for this angry posting and I hope it doesn't disrupt any continuation of the actual astrological discussion that might've been about to occur before I said this. Hopefully it won't, since it seemed as if the astrological discussion side of the thread had already reached its point of completion, so I'll draw some reassurance from that.

Regards

handn
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  Next
Page 4 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