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:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Differences about reception
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
astrobe



Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 12

Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 1:30 am    Post subject: Differences about reception Reply with quote

Lilly's and Bonatti's or Frawley's?

Ex. Lilly's and Bonatti's: Love
querent is Moon in Capricorn, quesited is Saturn, Saturn loves the querent.

Ex. Frawley's: Love
querent is Moon in Capricorn, quesited is Saturn, the querent loves Saturn, the quesited.

Who do you agree with?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Saturngirl



Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 200
Location: England

Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 8:05 pm    Post subject: Differences about reception Reply with quote

Hi astrobe! Very Happy
Lilly of course.. Lala Happy

_________________
Enjoy what you learn,as it keeps the mind youthful!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Lakewind



Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Buffalo area, New York State

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm. Reception by sign, always thought this was mutual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frawley.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:42 am    Post subject: Re: Differences about reception Reply with quote

astrobe wrote:
Lilly's and Bonatti's or Frawley's?

Ex. Lilly's and Bonatti's: Love
querent is Moon in Capricorn, quesited is Saturn, Saturn loves the querent.

Ex. Frawley's: Love
querent is Moon in Capricorn, quesited is Saturn, the querent loves Saturn, the quesited.

Who do you agree with?


Hi

I do not believe that Lilly or Bonatti discuss reception in the context of showing love. Could you cite a source for this?

Frawley's use of reception is puzzling at times but the thing to note is that he is essentially alone in his theory. Lilly, Bonatti and the entire history of astrology do it slightly differently, at least if we take his example in his book into account.

Reception does not show love, but it can ease the perfection of an aspect and demonstrate that a planet opens itself up to another.
Let's use your example.

Quesited is Saturn, querent is Moon in Capricorn.
Well the Moon is in detriment and applying to Saturn, so the Moon being the most swift is probably the most keen on the matter. Saturn will however receive the Moon so will be open to its advances.

None of this will demonstrate love, love is something much more complex. What we know from this situation is that the querent is not in good dignity and is disposed of by the quesited, so this might show some sense of the moon being love sick over the quesited or infatuated. Depending on the type of aspect involved, that Saturn receives the Moon is a good grace for the Moon. Saturn would appear to be willing to accept some of the advances of the Moon, who is just pushing her own disposition.


You might find these articles by Deb Houlding on reception useful:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception.html
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig6.html

Also this thread on reception:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5139
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrobe



Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 12

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 12:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Differences about reception Reply with quote

Quote:
Hmmm. Reception by sign, always thought this was mutual.

it is not mutual in my example, saturn isn't in moon's sign.

Quote:
Hi

I do not believe that Lilly or Bonatti discuss reception in the context of showing love. Could you cite a source for this?

Frawley's use of reception is puzzling at times but the thing to note is that he is essentially alone in his theory. Lilly, Bonatti and the entire history of astrology do it slightly differently, at least if we take his example in his book into account.

They don't discuss reception in the context of showing love, Frawley does. Frawley's use of reception is different than Lilly, Bonatti. who do you agree with?

Quote:
Quesited is Saturn, querent is Moon in Capricorn.
Well the Moon is in detriment and applying to Saturn, so the Moon being the most swift is probably the most keen on the matter. Saturn will however receive the Moon so will be open to its advances.

None of this will demonstrate love, love is something much more complex. What we know from this situation is that the querent is not in good dignity and is disposed of by the quesited, so this might show some sense of the moon being love sick over the quesited or infatuated. Depending on the type of aspect involved, that Saturn receives the Moon is a good grace for the Moon. Saturn would appear to be willing to accept some of the advances of the Moon, who is just pushing her own disposition.

i agree, Frawley says that saturn also loves the moon.

Quote:

None of this will demonstrate love, love is something much more complex.

if reception doesn't demonstrate love, what would demonstrate love in an horary chart?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Differences about reception Reply with quote

A
astrobe wrote:

Ex. Lilly's and Bonatti's: Love
querent is Moon in Capricorn, quesited is Saturn, Saturn loves the querent.


B
astrobe wrote:
They [Lilly and Bonatti] don't discuss reception in the context of showing love, Frawley does. Frawley's use of reception is different than Lilly, Bonatti. who do you agree with?


Please, help me to understand: if B is right, why do you claim, even though not in terms, at first A to be correctly quoted? As yet I am almost sure to misunderstand you. To give the quotes as Paul asked for, would help a lot for sure.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Differences about reception Reply with quote

astrobe wrote:
i agree, Frawley says that saturn also loves the moon.

Your Example:
Quesited is Saturn, querent is Moon in Capricorn.

Being not at home I have no access to Frawleys Horary Textbook now. But I doubt that he claims that Saturn "loves" a Planet (or in this example the Moon) in his domicile Capricorne.
You are right, that in Frawleys opinion, and as far as I see only in his opinion, Planets received in another planet's dignities are "loving" the receiving planet;
and that Planets in another planet's debilities are "hating" this other planet more or less.
Please correct me, if I am mistaken.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lakewind



Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Buffalo area, New York State

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't understand the concept of reception by the ancients very well, but just the fact that the moon is in Capricorn, ruled by Saturn, it doesn't matter that Saturn is not in the moon's sign. The fact that it is Saturn (ruler of Capricorn) makes it mutual, in modern terms. Have I misunderstood Frawley, who DOES consider recption by sign to indicate "love"? There are other factors, as people have discussed, which must bear on the judgrment, of course.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not so much whether you agree with Lilly or Frawley, it's more whether you agree with Frawley or everyone else.

Many things combined may indicate love but as a general rule of thumb the one that is the swiftest in application is generally the one that is the most keen to perfect the matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is hard to understand Lilly's understanding of receptions, that is, when he uses it at all. There are examples where he clearly goes wrong in his comments on receptions.

Look at CA pg. 385 for a clear example of a mess of a chart where if he had used receptions at all and/or used "Frawley's" approach he would have given the querent a different, correct answer.

He advised the querent to marry someone who she had no connection with, quite the opposite. Following Frawley: Saturn is in love with both Venus and the Moon, that is, the guy really wants to marry the lady. But the lady (the Sun) exalts ("loves") Jupiter. The Sun is in Saturn's detriment (hates Saturn) and the Moon is about to ether its own detriment when entering under the power of Saturn. Bad relationship, end of story. But Lilly managed to have these two get married. There's more that's just plain wrong in this chart judgement but this illustrates the idea being discussed here.

Regarding the "love" concept, this is easy to verify in practice. Just do several relationship charts and follow the outcome and/or discuss it sincerely and closely with the querent and see what works and what does not. This is good to do with friends. That way you do not need to follow Frawley or Joe or Bono, you just follow what works and leave aside what does not work.

I have found over and over that Frawley's approach works correctly in practice. Maybe the other approaches work too, I don't know. If they do, I think it is better to not mix the two and just follow the one that works for you. But make sure you verify in practice yourself.

Frawley's concept of "love" and "hate" to explain receptions is a simplification, perhaps an over-simplification. But Frawley also shares another very pertinent concept, the concept of power. That is, in the Moon in CAP example, Saturn has power over the Moon. Which is the idea of disposition. In Lilly's example above both concepts come into play neatly.

The love and hate concepts do not apply to all types of horaries obviously, so we have to stretch our minds to understand how it may apply. I have had no problem expanding the concepts to make them work on a per-chart basis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lakewind wrote:
I can't understand the concept of reception by the ancients very well, but just the fact that the moon is in Capricorn, ruled by Saturn, it doesn't matter that Saturn is not in the moon's sign. The fact that it is Saturn (ruler of Capricorn) makes it mutual, in modern terms. Have I misunderstood Frawley, who DOES consider recption by sign to indicate "love"? There are other factors, as people have discussed, which must bear on the judgrment, of course.

Modern Approach (about or perhaps since Lilly):
Planet A is in some dignity of planet B. Planet B receives planet A. This is RECEPTION.
Planet A is in some dignity of planet B, and planet B is in some dignity of planet A. This is MUTUAL RECEPTION.

Classical approach (about or perhaps until Lilly):
In addition to the above said, you need an Aspect between Planet A and Planet B, before you can approve a reception

Understand this as basical and that nearly every Authority postulates differentiations. There is not one "true" definition of reception, but there are many definitions and it is essentially for the understanding to know what the one author is thinking of when he speaks of reception, and what the other.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lakewind



Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Posts: 103
Location: Buffalo area, New York State

Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do understand that, Johannes, but when explained on this site using quotes from the ancient, with which I include Lilly, it is explained in such a cumbersome, unnecessarily ( it seems to me) obscure and complicated fashion, I just shake my head in frustration and go on to something else. Dastar, thank you for a very interesting answer. As usual, this site is invaluable for it's many insights.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:

Modern Approach (about or perhaps since Lilly):
Planet A is in some dignity of planet B. Planet B receives planet A. This is RECEPTION.
Planet A is in some dignity of planet B, and planet B is in some dignity of planet A. This is MUTUAL RECEPTION.

Classical approach (about or perhaps until Lilly):
In addition to the above said, you need an Aspect between Planet A and Planet B, before you can approve a reception

Understand this as basical and that nearly every Authority postulates differentiations. There is not one "true" definition of reception, but there are many definitions and it is essentially for the understanding to know what the one author is thinking of when he speaks of reception, and what the other.

Johannes


What you have down as the modern approach is really the most common and standard and predates Lilly. If a planet is in the dignities of another, that other planet will receive it - by reception we mean will greet and cater to it.
Reception is and always has been strengthened by an aspect - in fact really reception requires an aspect. However with regards mutual reception, if there is no aspect, (sometimes called generosity) it is like a weaker mutual reception.

But as a rule reception does and always has required an aspect.

As for the classical use of reception, really the classical use was the same as above only required the slower moving planet to receive the faster one. So Moon in Aquarius applying to Saturn, the moon would commit its disposition, in other words Saturn would give a reception to the Moon.

This is how reception has always been (nothing to do with Lilly as a demarcation of 'modern time' etc).

Modern authors (predominantly 20th century) have sometimes misunderstood Lilly's terminology (because he can be a sloppy writer) and have come away with other understandings of his terminology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:

What you have down as the modern approach is really the most common and standard and predates Lilly. If a planet is in the dignities of another, that other planet will receive it - by reception we mean will greet and cater to it.
Reception is and always has been strengthened by an aspect - in fact really reception requires an aspect. However with regards mutual reception, if there is no aspect, (sometimes called generosity) it is like a weaker mutual reception.
But as a rule reception does and always has required an aspect.

So what is the definition of reception in your opinion? Your statement is a bit inconsistent as to the question whether or not an aspect is essential for a reception.


Paul wrote:
This is how reception has always been (nothing to do with Lilly as a demarcation of 'modern time' etc).

I did not want to make Lilly "a demarcation of modern time"; this is not my point and I didn't say that. But it is a fact that Lilly is the first authority who does not postulate an aspect for the reception. Previous to him only Ibn Ezra is the only authority accepting a reception without an aspect (assumed both planets receive each other in their dignities.


Paul wrote:
Modern authors (predominantly 20th century) have sometimes misunderstood Lilly's terminology (because he can be a sloppy writer) and have come away with other understandings of his terminology.

But your criticism is not at all true for Lilly's definition of reception!

Johannes
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
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