2
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 0? of him, then
when the SO receds from him; in regard it?s 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.

3
As I cannot correct the quotation because the "edit"-button is gone :shock: (what a pity! :-? ), 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 it?s 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.

Re: planet in domicile

5
AquariusMoonPerson wrote:This may be a simple question for all you smarty pants :D 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.

6
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

7
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 it?s 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

9
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

10
Janis wrote:
Combustion and Sun?s rays

The Sun in his nature is regarded as a benefic in tradition. The lack of the Sun?s regard in a day chart is one of the worst afflictions and deprives the relevant planet of the king?s 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 Sun?s 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 Sun?s 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 ? 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 Sun?s 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 signficiator?s approaching combustion should be regarded as a fortification rather than an affliction unless the Sun is afflicted as discussed above ? 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 ? 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.

12
Janis Valkovskis wrote:Combustion and Sun?s 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! :' :D

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