Differences about reception

1
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?

Re: Differences about reception

5
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

Re: Differences about reception

6
Hmmm. Reception by sign, always thought this was mutual.
it is not mutual in my example, saturn isn't in moon's sign.
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?
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.
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?

Re: Differences about reception

7
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

Re: Differences about reception

8
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

9
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.

10
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.

11
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.

12
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