31
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.
Last edited by PFN on Mon May 28, 2012 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

33
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 :P

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.

34
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?

35
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.

36
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.

37
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.
Image

38
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.

39
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.

40
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.

41
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

42
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.