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

planet in domicile
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AquariusMoonPerson



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 71

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:05 pm    Post subject: planet in domicile Reply with quote

This may be a simple question for all you smarty pants Very Happy but if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1338

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frawley, The Horary Textbook, p. 60:
"The debate on how combustion affects a planet in that planet's own sign (e.g. Venus combust in Taurus) is an ancient one. Treat it exactly as a mutual reception: the planet has power over the Sun by dispositing it; the Sun has power over the planet by combustion. So the combustion does not harm the planet; the idea of not being able to see or be seen still remains, however."
Some lines above this but in the same page he said:
"Apart from being utterly destructive, combustion can also show that whoever or whatever is signified by that planet cannot either see or be seen."

Lilly, CA, p.
"[...]and you must observe a
Planet is more afflicted when the SO hastens t 0į of him, then
when the SO receds from him; in regard itís the body of the
SO that doth afflict."

You see both opinions to be argued in the astrological literature. But I think Lilly is more consistent: The body of the star in combustion is burnt by the Sun. That is why the planet cannot be seen as long as he is combust. Even Frawley does consent in so far. Why then - nevertheless - the same burnt planet could be protected by his position in his own domicile, and how, is not explained by him and can't in my opinion.

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



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1338

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I cannot correct the quotation because the "edit"-button is gone Shocked (what a pity! Confused ), I have to repeat the quotation.

Lilly, CA, p. 113:
"[...]and you must observe a Planet is more afflicted when the Sun hastens to the Conjunction of him, then when the Sun receds from him; in regard itís the body of the Sun that doth afflict."

Johannes.


Last edited by johannes susato on Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1338

Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The "edit"-button just emerged from the off . . .
But now I leave it as it is!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 377
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:46 pm    Post subject: Re: planet in domicile Reply with quote

AquariusMoonPerson wrote:
This may be a simple question for all you smarty pants Very Happy but if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?


CA page 115, under "Essential Dignities":

"A Planet in his own house...." + 5 points

Under "Accidental Debilities", same page:

"Combust of the Sun" - 5 points.

So, the simple answer from Lilly is... yes!

However, on page 113, Lilly tells us that, "A planet is said to be combust the sun, when in the same sign where the sun is in, he is not distant from the sun eight degrees and thirty minutes...."

Given that being combust is based on an astronomical phenomenon, (when the sun rises after a planet, or sets before a planet, the sky will be too bright to see the planet when it is within 8 degrees of the sun), it seems inconsistent of Lilly to set a sign change boundary on a planet being combust.

Geoffrey


Last edited by Geoffrey on Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 377
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 17th aphorism in 'Bethem's Centiloquium' (available on this website)

"If combust in his own house, he is as a man confined thereto by his King"

And if the poor planet is retrograde, the 30th aphorism....

"A planet seven degrees distant from the sun in his own house, retrograde, is a man in in his castle in the power of his enemy, striving to abandon slavery."

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



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1338

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:
The 17th aphorism in 'Bethem's Centiloquium' (available on this website)

"If combust in his own house, he is as a man confined thereto by his King"
[...]
Geoffrey

And this is why Lilly (CA, p. 113) says:
"[...]and you must observe a Planet is more afflicted when the Sun hastens to the Conjunction of him, then when the Sun receds from him; in regard itís the body of the Sun that doth afflict."

The strength of the planet of 5 fortitudes in his domicile is by this affliction (combustion) of 5 debilities burnt to nothing (= 0, as you counted correctly)!
It should be clear that Lilly's answer to the question: "if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?"
would be "NO" (and not a yes, as you claim in your first answer above).

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



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1338

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two aphorisms of Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p. 136:

Nr. 89: A planet under the light of the Sun is like a person in prison.

Nr. 90: A combust planet is like a dying person.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 377
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:

The strength of the planet of 5 fortitudes in his domicile is by this affliction (combustion) of 5 debilities burnt to nothing (= 0, as you counted correctly)!
It should be clear that Lilly's answer to the question: "if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?"
would be "NO" (and not a yes, as you claim in your first answer above).



Well Johannes, I did say that mine was the "simple" answer. However, your ingenious logic has drawn attention to the possible problems of using the table of fortitudes and debilities of the planets in the simple way as I just did.

What about all the other accidental fortitudes and debilities listed on page 115 of CA? Do we just ignore them - and ignore the planet too - now that the planet is "burnt to nothing"? Is there no hope for the planet even though it may (for example) have help from a trine to Jupiter (well placed) and be on the ascendant? Your answer to these questions would appear to be yes. Would you agree?

Thanks

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Janis Valkovskis



Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 508

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Janis wrote:

Quote:
Combustion and Sunís rays

The Sun in his nature is regarded as a benefic in tradition. The lack of the Sunís regard in a day chart is one of the worst afflictions and deprives the relevant planet of the kingís benevolence making one to be an outlaw (persona non grata) in their actions, so to say. Whilst regard by the Sun (before judge always consider receptions and other factors which I described in previous chapters) is a token that the king grants his blessings (approval) to act; it per se does not mean that you will definitely succeed in your business (it depends on many factors) but that you are given the green light to act.

As always, the closer to partile is the Sunís regard, the stronger its effect. His partile opposition is always harmful (and can be considered as one of the worst afflictions); partile square depends on reception involved (if there is a good reception, for instance, the planet is received by the Sun (house or exaltation), it fortifies the planet).

Unlike Jupiter or Venus whose conjunction has a stronger beneficial effect (unless afflicted) on a planet than their trine aspect, the Sunís conjunction afflicts a planet more than his opposition. Such effect is known as combustion. We will not discuss the philosophy behind it, but will discuss the effects brought about by it.

Being combust is the very worst debility for a planet, and traditionalists consider it worse than being cadent or afflicted by malefics, it ruins a planet completely. We will not discuss the philosophy behind it, but will discuss the effects brought about by it.

Although traditionalists offer wider orbs (which I will not discuss here), based on practice, I offer the following orbs: a planet is afflicted if she 3 degrees from the Sun and is approaching combustion or 2 degrees from the Sun and is leaving combustion. If out of such distance, the effect of combustion is irrelevant.

The effect is not equal if a planet is approaching or leaving combustion - in the first case all difficulties await the planet, in the second case hard time for the planet comes to an end. If one significator is approaching combustion and the other is leaving combustion, the first one is worse afflicted even if it is a few more degrees far from the Sun than the second (for instance, I will consider a planet 4 degrees away from the Sun but approaching combustion worse afflicted than a planet 1.5 degrees away from the Sun but leaving combustion).

Combustion is not equally worse for all planets and the degree of affliction differs if, for instance, Mercury is hastening to its superior conjunction (when direct) with the Sun or if the Moon is approaching combustion (New Moon). The Moon is the one who suffers most from combustion; some consider that it is better for the querent to have the significator combust than the Moon. Practice shows that it is true. Mercury seems not to be suffering very much from combustion (since it has always been near the Sun from the beginning of the world, it must have become tempered to such weather conditions), in particular if it is hastening to the Sun after its second station (when direct after being retrograde).

If an inferior (Mercury or Venus) after its first station, i.e. when retrograde, is hastening to conjunction with the Sun, it is worse than its hastening to the Sun after its second station (when direct).

Combustion, to a greater or lesser extent, deprives a planet of its ability to act to its own liking but leaves it to the mercy of fate (which might not be necessarily unhappy) but does not deprive of its ability to mar the life of others. A combust malefic, although impotent to help itself, afflicts a planet worse than as if it were not combust. For instance, combustion increases the heat of Mars and thus considerably his potential to harm with heat.

In judging the effect of combustion, always consider the condition of the Sun (his essential and accidental dignities Ė the place in figure, etc.) and the planet suffering combustion. Consider receptions involved. A planet in its own house or exaltation is more able to bear the hardship than a one in its fall or just peregrine. The relevant planet as a host has certain power over the Sun, and the Sun as a guest must, according to the celestial laws, refrain from harming his host. If the Sun is the significator then such position should be considered as a fortification. If a planet is received by the Sun (i.e. in Aries or Leo), he refrains from harming the guest.

But if the Sun suffers essential debility in the sign he is in, he does not spare even the ruler of the relevant sign. Thus, for Venus it is better to be combust in Taurus than Libra which is the fall of the Sun. In the domiciles and terms of malefics combustion is worse than in domiciles and terms of benefics (however consider receptions which might modify your judgement); in the signs which differ in nature with the Sun combustion is worse than in signs which agree with the Sunís nature (hot and dry). For instance, combustion in Sagittarius (a hot and dry sign) would not be so negative in effect if the combustion were in Scorpio (a wet and cold sign).

To sum up, there is a difference if a planet is scorched in Libra or Aquarius (where the Sun suffers debility) or in Aries or Leo (where the Sun is dignified).

Scorching should not be necessarily considered as an affliction. If the Sun rules the hour, disposes POF or rules the MC, or is the almuten of the place of nonagesimal, the signficiatorís approaching combustion should be regarded as a fortification rather than an affliction unless the Sun is afflicted as discussed above Ė then combustion should be treated as one of the worst afflictions in their common sense.

There is a place, called Cazimi, where a planet is considered to be particularly strong in tradition while being scorched Ė some 17 minutes before or after the conjunction with the Sun. Experience shows that it is in fact so although I do not know a plausible explanation why. Morin disagreed because, in his opinion, it contradicts reasoning.

However if the Sun is afflicted, a planet is not much helped by being in Cazimi. Experience shows that a planet is deprived of the beneficial effect of Cazimi if the Sun is in Libra or Aquarius or otherwise afflicted due to the position of his dispositor (the dispositor in its own fall or the fall of the Sun).


Well, I wrote this in sports section how to judge a soccer chart, but it works the same way in horaries as well. So we cannot unequivocally say that scorching ruins a planet. The degree of affliction depends on various factors and sometimes scorching cannot be regarded as an affliction at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Janis Valkovskis



Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 508

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just happened to paste the text twice, so I deleted it.

Leery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1338

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Janis Valkovskis wrote:
Combustion and Sunís rays
[..]
Although traditionalists offer wider orbs (which I will not discuss here), based on practice, I offer the following orbs: a planet is afflicted if she 3 degrees from the Sun and is approaching combustion or 2 degrees from the Sun and is leaving combustion. If out of such distance, the effect of combustion is irrelevant.

The effect is not equal if a planet is approaching or leaving combustion - in the first case all difficulties await the planet, in the second case hard time for the planet comes to an end. If one significator is approaching combustion and the other is leaving combustion, the first one is worse afflicted even if it is a few more degrees far from the Sun than the second (for instance, I will consider a planet 4 degrees away from the Sun but approaching combustion worse afflicted than a planet 1.5 degrees away from the Sun but leaving combustion).
[..]


Thanks for this very impressive text, Janis! Thumbs up Very Happy

The tight orbs, you give, are they only for combustion or do you claim them in general?

Can you please explain the contradiction in the two paragraphs above? If the orb for affliction in application is given by 3 degrees then an applying planet can not yet be afflicted, when it is still 4 degrees away.

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



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1338

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:
johannes susato wrote:

The strength of the planet of 5 fortitudes in his domicile is by this affliction (combustion) of 5 debilities burnt to nothing (= 0, as you counted correctly)!
It should be clear that Lilly's answer to the question: "if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?"
would be "NO" (and not a yes, as you claim in your first answer above).



Well Johannes, I did say that mine was the "simple" answer. However, your ingenious logic has drawn attention to the possible problems of using the table of fortitudes and debilities of the planets in the simple way as I just did.

What about all the other accidental fortitudes and debilities listed on page 115 of CA? Do we just ignore them - and ignore the planet too - now that the planet is "burnt to nothing"? Is there no hope for the planet even though it may (for example) have help from a trine to Jupiter (well placed) and be on the ascendant? Your answer to these questions would appear to be yes. Would you agree?

Thanks

Geoffrey


Thank you, Geoffrey! Very Happy

But no, of course I do not. I mean agree that my answer would be yes!
Of course we do not ignore "all the other accidental fortitudes and debilities listed on page 115 of CA"!

But in sequence:
You had written before (in your first text in this thread):
Geoffrey wrote:

So, the simple answer from Lilly is... yes!

Geoffrey

I thaught I were allowed to think you gave Lilly's answer. If you did not want to do this, we agree insofar as this could not be the answer of Lilly, who surely never would accept the modern teaching of the quasi 'uncombust' Planet in his domicile.
And that the problem is really not as "simple", we agree again.

Probably it is this confusion of dignities and debilities on the one side, and fortidudes and debilities on the other side, which makes some mordern authors like Frawley say that "the combustion does not harm the planet" in his domicile.
But of course it does!

And this is why Lilly (CA, p. 111) and other classical authors say (without this confusion):
"[...]and you must know that the combustion of any Pla-
net is the greatest misfortune that can be."

And Lilly later, p. 113:
"[...] the significator of the
Querent combust, shews him or her in great fear, and overpowered by some great person."

You ask:
"What about all the other accidental fortitudes and debilities listed on page 115 of CA? Do we just ignore them - and ignore the planet too - now that the planet is "burnt to nothing"? "

I never said, that the planet is burnt to nothing, but I said:
"The strength of the planet of 5 fortitudes in his domicile is by this affliction (combustion) of 5 debilities burnt to nothing (= 0, as you counted correctly)!"

The strenght of a planet by his position in his house/domicile is not the planet himself.

So a Planet's essential and accidental dignities and debilities can be converted into the positive and negative numbers of all the according fortitudes and debilities with the result that even the strongest planet/querent is and remains, when combust, "in great fear, and overpowered by some great person", as Lilly says, or "is like a dying person" (Ibn Ezra).

The numbers of fortitudes and debilities can be counted up, essential and accidental dignities and debilities can not.

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



Joined: 03 Jun 2010
Posts: 508

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johannes wrote:

Quote:
If the orb for affliction in application is given by 3 degrees then an applying planet can not yet be afflicted, when it is still 4 degrees away.


Everything is relative, though. Regrettably, we do not have a recipe how to judge the effect of scorching which would be correct and fit 100% of cases.

I advocated 3 degrees for an applying combustion and 2 degrees for a receding one based on my practice in judging soccer charts. Within the given orbs there indeed is a notable influence on the outcome of a game. In horaries, elections, natal, etc. you may slightly extend the given orbs.

Actually I didn't say that a planet is not afflicted at all if out of the given orbs; I just said that the effect of combustion is irrelevant (not notable, pronounced).

I was discussing a particular situation when I said that I would consider a planet 4 degrees away from the Sun but applying scorching more afflicted than a one 1.5 degrees away from the Sun but receding scorching. I just gave my assessment on the effect of both planets being scorched. Such situations when both significators are scorched happen but are relatively infrequent in comparison with ones when only one significator is scorched. In the latter case I would use the given orbs (3 degrees for applying and 2 for receding).

Of course, you should take into account the place (sign and house) where the combustion happens, the essential and accidental quality of the Sun, the planet suffering scorching (the Moon is one who suffers more than other planets, Mercury is relatively immune to scorching), not only the distance in zodiacal degrees but also the actual speed (temporal aspect) the relevant planet or planets are applying or receding from combustion and other considerations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 377
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thankyou Johannes, for your clarification. You would appear to be in the camp that regards being combust as an absolute property. If a planet is combust, it is sick and ineffective, as Lilly and other traditional texts say, regardless of its other dignities and fortitudes.

However, some "modern" authors regard being combust as relative in its effect. Being combust is a handicap, which can be offset to the extent that a planet can still have significant strength and efficacy if well dignified in other ways.

johannes susato wrote:


The numbers of fortitudes and debilities can be counted up, essential and accidental dignities and debilities can not.



What you say here is, of course, contrary to what Lilly says about the use of the table on page 115. Lilly does not actually give instructions on the use of the table, saying that he will show how it is used in a later example. And indeed, come page 178, we have our example.

It is clear in this example that Lilly is putting Essential Dignities and Accidental Fortitudes in the same bucket on one side of the equation, and Debilities and Accidental Debilities in the same bucket on the other side of the equation. Lilly goes on to count up the "Fortitudes" (Essential Dignities with Accidental Fortitudes) and takes from this sum the "Debilities" (Debilities with Accidental Debilites). The resulting number is the strength of the planet.

Lilly does not state that being combust is a special case to be considered on its own merits when judging the strength of a planet by the use of this table. A planet is either not combust, which gives it 5 points on one side of the equation; or it is combust, which gives it five points on the other side of the equation. Effectively then, being combust is worth 10 debility points - which is roughly equivalent to the (effective) 9 debility points for being retrograde.

Would you say the debilitating effect of being retrograde is similar to being combust....? I suspect not.

Having totted up the points though, you could be left with a planet which was still reasonably strong and effective, despite being combust, as with the example I gave earlier.

So, the table of Fortitudes and Debilities on page 115 does not seem to accurately reflect what Lilly says elsewhere about a planet being combust, or indeed what other authors of that era and earlier say about a planet being combust.

It would seem that Lilly is inconsistent about the effects of being combust, being an absolutist in some places and a relativist in others, and I suspect that this has resulted in a divergence of opinions today about how serious being combust is.

Best wishes,

Geoffrey
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  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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