46
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.

47

Code: Select all

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.

49
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".

50
Deb wrote:

Code: Select all

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.

51
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.

52
Here's the chart: "Shall I be able to purchase certain Houses?"
Image
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.

53
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:
? 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.

54
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.

55
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.

56
Seiko wrote:
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.

57
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.