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:
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
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Differences about reception
Goto page Previous  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
PFN



Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 393
Location: Ouro Preto, Brasil

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
Very interesting and enjoyable, Paolo Felipe!

I'm off now, just too late to ask some questions. But now this one: Do you follow an author, or do you select parts of diverse teachings?

As a contrast to your text I should like to give this quote of
Morin, Astrologia Gallica, Book 18., Chapter VII, p. 423 (Translated by Llacer and LaBruzza, p. 39):
"We say that any Planet posited outside his Domicile, is received by another Planet, obviously, [...]"

Johannes


I may be too much optimistic, but most, if all traditional authors, from the arabs to Bonnati, Lilly to Morin, seem to me, they all agree on the basics of reception. Some of them open the possibility of reception without aspect, not all, and this is the only big point of discussion I see.

Frawley is the only author I know of that has the whole idea backwards, saying that the planet that is received is the one receveing (loving). So, I dismiss this, and I had a lot of difficult to do so, because the first book I ever read on traditional astrology was his, and I still find it a superb book for a beginner, but there is this problem.

About the Morin quote, I could not think of a better way to put it. Any planet outside his domicile will have to be either received or not by his ruler, his king, and that is a very simple way to put it. As I said before, it is as if the sign is a kingdom, the ruler is the king himself or the rulers of the sign (like a goverment, or a house master) and the planet inside is a traveler passing through, that can or can not be properly received, depending on the circumstance.

I think that a lot of people confuses everything because they do not separate distinct features of reception, aspect and disposition. For example, aspects exists without orb, orb only shows imminence of action, but a planet distant 29 from another in the same sign can still see this planet anyways, because what determines the ability of a planet to see through aspect is the affinity of elements that compose a sign (diurnal or not, same or similar humoral quality or not, geometric similarity, similar ascensional time, etc.).

So, a Sun at 29 Sagittarius will still receive a Mars at 1 Leo, even if for a short time, even if they will never aspect themselves, as the Sun will shortly go into Capricorn, unable to tend to Leo and Mars any longer. Yet, for a moment, this is reception, showing good will of the Sun to Mars, only that the aspect never comes to be, so, there is no event, only a prospect that never realizes it's potential. That would be generosity, the Sun wishes he could help once in Capricorn, but is unable due to the fact his rays can not reach Leo.
_________________
Paulo Felipe Noronha


Last edited by PFN on Mon May 28, 2012 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
astrobe



Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 12

Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has anyone asked an horary about love ? what worked for you, Frawley's or Lilly's and Bonatti's?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1138

Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astrobe wrote:
Has anyone asked an horary about love ? what worked for you, Frawley's or Lilly's and Bonatti's?


I always use Lilly's slash Bonatti's slash EVERYONE else's Razz

Basically Frawley reverse's how reception works, he makes it quite confusing, but if you use the older approach it not only makes more sense, but also seems to work in practice.

Of course in my view the horary astrologer is never a separate entity, and is always a part of the formula, so perhaps for Frawley and his students the questions are asked at a time that is meaningful for them to get the correct answer regardless. I've seen sidereal astrologers use horary effectively fairly recently on the sidereal forums here so it's very likely that the corner stone is the astrologer themselves.

If for no other reason than for clarity when reading any other author besides himself, I would advise not using Frawley's approach to reception though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lakewind



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

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, as you may recall from my other comments. I am having a difficult time with reception. The overwhelming majority of posters on this site agree with you that "Frawley gets it backwards" . Yet one recently said the sun and Jupiter in Taurus, in a recently discussed chart, exalted the moon, so the L7 would be open to the emotions of the L1 querent. This is what Frawley says, so how has he gotten it backwards? In exaltation, it is the planet doing the exalting that is wide open to receiving the other, no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1138

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lakewind wrote:
Paul, as you may recall from my other comments. I am having a difficult time with reception. The overwhelming majority of posters on this site agree with you that "Frawley gets it backwards" . Yet one recently said the sun and Jupiter in Taurus, in a recently discussed chart, exalted the moon, so the L7 would be open to the emotions of the L1 querent. This is what Frawley says, so how has he gotten it backwards? In exaltation, it is the planet doing the exalting that is wide open to receiving the other, no?


Obviously I cannot comment on someone else's post or what they may mean by it, it's always possible they are a follower of Frawley's approach of course.
Unfortunately you've not specified which significator is L1 andL7 so I don't know which way it is.

If the Moon were to aspect Jupiter (let's imagine it is free from combustion for simplicity's sake) then the Moon would receive Jupiter's influence.

Just clear your mind of everything you've read about how reception works. Re-read PNF's post - he explains it very clearly and easily I think.

If you're struggling with it, just ask "where is this other planet coming from? Is it coming from somewhere I have dignity? Because if so I will have to play host and receive it into my home".

So Mercury in Capricorn applying to Saturn. Saturn will ask "Does this planet, Mercury, reside in any of the places where I have dignity?" and the answer is yes, Mercury is in the domicile of Saturn, and so Saturn will receive Mercury, will play host to Mercury.

So genreally offering reception is like offering protection to the planet as well as attending to it as a host would a guest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

astrobe wrote:
Of course in my view the horary astrologer is never a separate entity, and is always a part of the formula, so perhaps for Frawley and his students the questions are asked at a time that is meaningful for them to get the correct answer regardless. I've seen sidereal astrologers use horary effectively fairly recently on the sidereal forums here so it's very likely that the corner stone is the astrologer themselves.

If for no other reason than for clarity when reading any other author besides himself, I would advise not using Frawley's approach to reception though.


Paul, you make an excellent point about the astrologer not being a separate entity, etc.

As for clarity, I think it is clear by now that both sides here (Frawley and the others) think the other side is confusing and our side simple. Well, good luck to us then. It is clear that we will not reconcile the two views.

For the sake of practicality and of helping Lakewind I propose we illustrate each approach and let her make a decision as to which approach to follow. I strongly advise not to mix the two. Chose one and stick with it.

So, I will post a real chart with a known outcome below and will open it for interpretation. Please delineate and predict using your approach if you like. But bear in mind that this is only an exercise because the chart was made for me and I use Frawley's approach. And in this case I happened to be accurate both in the delineation and prediction of the chart. I will offer my interpretation to illustrate the reception method I use.

It will be nice if one of you will offer one of your charts with accurate delineation, prediction and known outcome. I'm assuming you have a few of those. Please choose a similar one to mine so that Lakewind can study and compare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They had just started a relationship a couple of weeks before the chart was cast. The question was asked by a woman:

Do we have a future in the long run?

Have a go at it if you like. I'll write and post my interpretation soon.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1138

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dastars wrote:

Paul, you make an excellent point about the astrologer not being a separate entity, etc.

As for clarity, I think it is clear by now that both sides here (Frawley and the others) think the other side is confusing and our side simple. Well, good luck to us then. It is clear that we will not reconcile the two views.


Right, I agree. I think ultimately we should use what we see works and keep in mind the greater tradition. This is what I try to do when I do horary. I do think, if for no other reason than a purely pragmatic one, it makes sense to follow the greater tradition rather than any one particular author - be that one author Lilly or Frawley.

I don't really see any need to 'compete' the two views. I don't know how giving example charts and reading them would inform upon the situation without it essentially being a 'competition' if you know what I mean. I'm sure we can all bring forth examples of horaries that work using our methods or techniques - be they Frawley's use of reception, or even using the sidereal zodiac.

I think that's why this particular horary forum is so useful, very few others put the focus on the horary astrologer. It is up to them to interpret their chart. Whilst this also serves to distract and put off the more frivolous of posters or those who just want a quick answer (rather than study horary or explore it more) it also primarily means that every chart here is cast by someone who studies horary astrology - even if only to a minor level. And I think that's a very useful thing to have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't mean to compete, I mean to compare. Instead of only repeating what the books say and discussing hypothetical scenarios without context.

Lakewind has a dilema and seems to be confused. To my mind there's no better way to deal with that than to look at examples and see how the two different approaches are applied in practice.

My offer and suggestion that we present real practical examples is to help her make up her mind and move on to using the approach of her choice. I think that would certainly make this forum useful for her at this point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1138

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dastars wrote:
I don't mean to compete, I mean to compare. Instead of only repeating what the books say and discussing hypothetical scenarios without context.


Ok sure. I look forward to hearing your opinion on the chart and your use of reception to get to the answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lakewind



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

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, Dastars, I'm gonna bite. This despite my confessed lack of knowledge. I think this is a hot and emotional affair (sun and venus very close as secondary significators), but Mars in the seventh worries me. Since I am wildly ignorant of non Frawley reception despite the efforts of many, I'm going to leave it there. I suspect no future. Now, tell me the answer by PM, and give others a chance to really expound. Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Lakewind,

We have six significators in this chart, which is not so common, and thus it gives us a great lesson on receptions.

But it would be to your benefit if you explained why there is or there is not a future. The receptions alone tell us. Specially because the Moon and the Sun are about to change signs and with that the relationship between them will change radically, shown by the change in receptions.

Do you want to have a try at explaining the receptions? Just look at the Moon and the Sun and tell me what is happening now and what will happen when they change signs. This is very simple and pretty much answers the question.

If not I will post my interpretation so you can read it.

Also, are you familiar with the Arabian Part of Marriage? Its dispositor signifies their relationship. What does it tell us? Both by placement, essential and accidental dignity and by receptions? The dispositor of the Part of Marriage shows us the state of the relationship and also points at the same answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, this is in reply to a comment you made earlier.

You mentioned that "Reception does not show love, but it can ease the perfection of an aspect and demonstrate that a planet opens itself up to another."

But what is the inclination to "ease the perfection of an aspect" but a perfect example of the expression of love between entities?

Love it is not complex. The concept of love is the simplest and most basic and most all-pervading concept there is.

In its most basic, essential level it it exactly what receptions show. Look at it simply: if you love something or someone you want to help, you want the person or thing to be alive, to be there, to be more of itself, or you want to be near that thing or person, you want to do what it or he/she wants.

The bottom line is that a planet will help another planet or not. That is the basics of love, which happens to be the basics of receptions.

Finally, the concept of love in relation to receptions can be taken literally in relationship questions. In that case receptions show love as we usually understand it in its most obvious form. Without receptions there cannot be a way to show like or dislike in a chart.

But there are examples where love is not so obvious unless we think a little further. In certain types of questions it cannot be applied literally, it requires some abstraction and it requires looking at the *analogy* of love, not at the usual literal expression of love.

Some examples:

Iron loves a magnet.
Salt loves water.
Oil hates water.

So if in a medical chart L10" loves" you it means that the treatment will be good for you. If your bank "hates" you they will not be inclined to lend you money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dastars



Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 53

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Somebody mentioned that there must be an aspect in order for receptions to exist, I don't remember who.

That is not correct in all cases. There are a number of situations where receptions are used to answer a question where an aspect is not needed.

For example, in relationship questions we can have up to 5 significators for the two persons, plus, at times, one more significator for the ex-spouse for example, and yet another significator for the relationship itself, that is, the dispositor of the Arabian Part of Marriage.

If the question is: "does he love me?" We cannot expect that all significators involved will be in aspect but we certainly can look at all the receptions between them and that alone gives us the answer of who loves who. If there is an aspect, we look at what it is telling us. But is an aspect a necessity? No.

If we say "there usually must be receptions supporting an aspect for the aspect to bring the desired result", then I agree 100%.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Moderator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1138

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dastars wrote:
There are a number of situations where receptions are used to answer a question where an aspect is not needed.


Reception is itself a description of an aspect. Planets need first to see each other in order to receive one another.
Otherwise what you're talking about is actually going to be just to do with the dispositors of the planets surely?

Quote:
If the question is: "does he love me?" We cannot expect that all significators involved will be in aspect but we certainly can look at all the receptions between them and that alone gives us the answer of who loves who. If there is an aspect, we look at what it is telling us. But is an aspect a necessity? No.


Can you give an example? I don't understand what you mean by reception here. How can a planet receive another that it cannot see? It can dispose of its affairs of course, as all dispositors do, though perhaps not as well as if it could see the place of its domicile. But that is surely different.

For example what is the difference between dispositors and reception?
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, 6  Next
Page 3 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